Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association filed legal petitions Tuesday in Clark County District Court to block changes to the coroner’s inquest process, alleging the changes are unconstitutional. The police union’s executive director, Chris Collins (front and center), addresses the media Tuesday morning.
By Jackie Valley (contact) 
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 | 4:24 p.m.
Coroner's inquest challenge
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of police union challenge of new coroner's inquest process, June 21, 2011.
Sun archives
- Police union will try to block coroner’s inquest changes (6-20-2010)
- First coroner’s inquest under new rules is set for July 12 (6-3-2010)
- November police killing inching closer to inquest under new rules (5-6-2011)
- County commission finalizes changes to coroner’s inquest process (1-3-2011)
- Officers refuse to answer questions in death of man shot with Taser (12-31-2010)
- Commissioners discuss appointment of coroner’s inquest ombudspersons (12-22-2010)
- County Commission OKs changes to coroner’s inquest process (12-7-2010)
- Commissioners outline concerns of proposed inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- County commission to hear board’s suggestions for inquest changes (11-16-2010)
- Coroner’s inquest review panel proposes changes (11-8-2010)
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association filed legal action Tuesday to halt changes to the coroner's inquest process that it deems unconstitutional, specifically the introduction of an ombudsman to represent victims' families.
The ultimate goal is to eliminate the coroner's inquest altogether and reinvent what the union believes is a better process, the association's executive director, Chris Collins, told the media Tuesday.
"This process is no longer fair to our officers," he said. "We have advised our officers, after seeking legal counsel, that they should take the fifth and no longer participate in this process."
Attorney Josh Reisman, who is representing officers, filed petitions for a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus in Clark County District Court. The petitions would prevent Judge Karen P. Bennett-Haron from presiding over the first revamped coroner's inquest, scheduled for July 12, and block Clark County officials from proceeding with the inquests.
Police unions for Henderson and North Las Vegas also oppose the inquest changes, Collins said.
Clark County commissioners reviewed the inquest process late last year after public outcry regarding the officer-involved shootings that killed Trevon Cole in his Las Vegas apartment and Erik Scott in a Summerlin Costco last June and July, respectively.
Commissioners passed an ordinance Dec. 7 to revise the inquest process. Changes include the inclusion of an ombudsman to represent the victims' families, the release of key evidence and investigative files and the restructuring of meetings before the inquest hearing.
The July 12 inquest would be the first to reflect the changes. The petitions were filed on behalf of the three officers scheduled to be part of that inquest: Officers Phil Zaragoza, Michael Franco and Peter Kruse, who were involved in a shooting that killed 22-year-old Benjamin Bowman at a P.T.'s Pub last November.
Unless ordered by the court, Collins said the three officers don't plan to attend the inquest because of the alleged unconstitutional changes. The introduction of an ombudsman will make the inquest an adversarial process for officers rather than what he said is supposed to be a fact-finding hearing, Collins said.
The police union had proposed a measure during the legislative session to eliminate the inquest process altogether, but the bill failed. Clark County is the only jurisdiction in the state where officers involved in fatal shootings go through a coroner's inquest, Collins said.
"We simply wanted to be treated as officers are treated throughout our state," he said.
The police union deflected accusations that it's dodging transparency and on the verge of losing public support, citing 30 years of voluntary participation in the coroner's inquests.
"The officers would very much like to participate in this process if it was a fair and level playing field," Collins said.
Reisman said the inquest changes violate due process and equal protection laws in the state and federal constitution as well as a separation of powers doctrine — essentially, creating a situation for officers to be tried in the "court of public opinion" with the addition of an ombudsman.
"These cops deserve a fair trial, too, and that's what this is all about," he said.
Reisman said he expects the case to be assigned to a district court judge, and if the opposition requests a hearing, a judge will render a decision afterward.
It's a process that could take a week or six months, Collins said, not leaving much time before the scheduled July 12 inquest.
"We have to do this on an expedited basis," Reisman said.
Public trust in Metro is almost non-existent, and is rapidly going away for the D.A.'s office. Action such as this does not help.
This case will be laughed out of the court, where in the Constitution does it say cops and their union get special exemptions?
People, if asked any questions by Metro, just give them your ID and say you don't have anything to say, just like the cops at the inquests. If they can clam-up and lawyer-up, so can everyone else.
Apparently the cops are the only ones that deserve a fair trial, judging by their actions. Although they claim to want an honest fact finding process what they endorse stacks the deck in favor of the police and unfairly hinders the defendants. In light of the frequency of officer involved shootings in the valley, the number of officer involved deaths and their apparent tendency to shoot first and find the truth after the fact, I'm sure they would file suit to maintain the status quo.
I am and always have been a big supporter of the police and a sympathizer for the difficult job they do, but after paying attention to the number and frequency of incidents involving police since moving here, I'm concerned that if I'm ever in a situation where the police are involved I might not survive and I would at least like my family to have some ability for recourse if they are in the wrong.
In this case I believe the union is doing the rank and file policeman or woman a disservice by leading them down a path that will pit them against the public time after time. It's time to do the right thing and not necessarily the protect your own at all costs thing.
the cops and the firemen...
in this town...
CAN KISS MY @$$!!!
mred If we go by your rules of no special exemptions then you have just proven their case. The constitution applies to EVERYONE, including these officers. If they want to make it adversarial then the officers can exercise their 5th amendment right and this process will be a waste of time.
This is incredible nonsense. Do these people (lawyers, lawmakers, etc.) understand that an inquest is NOT a trial? It is nothing more than a hearing to determine a cause of death. They're talking of "fair trials" while saying that they want to boycott the process of determining the cause of death of someone killed by an officer!
IF and only IF the officers are properly trained, psychologically sound and fit for duty, AND following procedure - if they are doing all of these things then why are they so afraid and-or resistant to answering questions at an inquest?
The D.A.'s office could easily subject them to a real trial with a real jury under the state's constitution and they could plead the 5th all they want but that isn't going to change a thing. If a person accused of committing a crime chooses not to speak in their own defense that's their choice but it won't change the presentation of evidence to a jury. By boycotting the inquest process they are simply telling us and the system that they have something to hide, at which point a criminal investigation should be opened.
The law enforcement...and oh guys...you're enforcement not the law...isn't exempt from the same laws as everyone else. If my wife falls down the stairs and breaks her neck and we happen to be alone at the time, there will most likely be an inquest into the cause of her death. Now imagine if I said I wasn't going to participate and made a big fuss to the coroner's office that I didn't have to speak? Metro would be at my door in a minute dragging me off to jail under suspicion of murder. Apparently, they're too good and important, however, to be subjected to the same scrutiny and common sense as the rest of us.
Oh and a note to the Tea Party - this is what you get when you don't have regulations. It's called Marshall Law and just because you might happen to be white and retired and go to church every Sunday it doesn't mean you can't fall victim to it.
Sporty,
You make some very valid points, particularly regarding the application of the 5th amendment in a criminal trial.
Additionally, you hit the nail on the head with regards to the difference between a coroner's inquest (the original version) and a trial.
The only portion where it seems to fall off is regarding the coroner's inquest into a death like you describe (wife falls down and dies with no other witnesses).
The coroner's inquest hasn't been used (to my knowledge and recent memory in Clark County) for anything other than in custody deaths by law enforcement/government agents.
The case you describe would be investigated in detail by detectives and if it was really fishy, homicide detectives. Then the investigative findings would be compared with findings from the autopsy and THEN a decision would be made to file charges by the DA. If it did not rise to the level of probable cause, no inquest, no nothing. Case closed.
Citizens are found to lawfully use deadly force all the time, with much less scrutiny from the public via an inquest.
The inquest in its original format worked very well and was in fact one of the most open formats used nationwide. Most places in the country still lock the doors and simply hold a secret Grand Jury proceeding and clear the officers without any observation of any process whatsoever.
When Clark County officers have been charged with a crime in regards to a shooting death, they don't get to go to an inquest at all (ala Brady/Mortenson in the late 90's). They are simply arraigned and brought to criminal trial like any other suspect.
What about the conflicts in testimony between the Medical Examiner on the forensic evidence and the testimony of Brian Yant in the Cole case? Why hasn't that been presented to a grand jury to resolve? In the approximately 200 inquests that have been held, only once has there been a finding of criminal, and that case was never brought to a grand jury. I believe that happened in the 1970's. The case of Brady/Mortenson in the 1990's was two Metro officers, who were off duty, getting drunk to celebrate a birthday and shooting a civilian to death.
How many people can name Metro officers who have brought disgrace to the uniform they wear, and on the other side of the coin, how many officers can you name who have brought honor to the uniform they wear?
If I was one of these officers I would take the 5th. Then you would get NOTHING! Charge me first. These officers have rights just like the rest of us. I would NEVER just give you information that could put me in jail.
@ RowdyYates...." When Clark County officers have been charged with a crime in regards to a shooting death, they don't get to go to an inquest at all (ala Brady/Mortenson in the late 90's). They are simply arraigned and brought to criminal trial like any other suspect.
That would be more interesting it were either relevant or true. While Ron Mortensen was charged by the DA's officer for his role in the 1995 shooting death of Daniel Mendoza, an inquest was not warranted as the shooting happened while he and Christopher Brady were off duty during the shooting. And Brady, whose father was a Metro detective and who had numerous abuse complaints against hims, including rape, was never charged by the DA's office. It was in Federal Court that he was finally convicted and sentenced.
So tell me again how this is an example of how the old system worked so well.
And what about the cop that was found standing over the dead body of a Henderson man, in the Man's own bedroom and claimed he was acting in self defense when the man found him in bed with the man's wife. And the only story told was the one by the officer and the wife he was cheating with. Even though both had motive and were both steeped in the dishonesty of an affair the DA decided not to pursue charges or an inquest, stating the officer's off duty status.
Justice within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD)
Las Vegas, Nevada; It has been reported that District Attorney Steve Wolfson will prosecute Jesus Arevalo, with 99% certainty. Without question, Veterans In Politics, International, commends and supports Mr. Wolfson, should he go forward with this endeavor. Since December 2011, Jesus Arevalo has escaped justice after executing cancer-ridden disabled Gulf War Veteran Stanley Gibson, by shooting the unarmed and subdued man in the back of the head 7 times with an AR 15 assault rifle.
We would urge Mr. Wolfson to continue his pursuit of justice by helping citizens address the issue of un-ending paid administrative leave for officers whom are under investigation. If an officer's behavior is egregious enough to warrant an investigation, tax payers should not be asked to give them a paid vacation. These officers are being rewarded. The cost to taxpayers is astronomical, unfair, and criminal.
The Police Protective Association (PPA) should also be put in check. Too often, the conflict of interest that exists with the relationship between LVMPD and the PPA results in no justice to the residents of Clark County.
Chris Collins of the Police Protective Association, stated to reporters, "The PPA believe"officer Arevalo acted well within statutes of the State of Nevada, the policies of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and committed no criminal act." If this is a fact, that the policies of LVMPD include authorizing officers to assassinate unarmed, physically and mentally ill citizens, then we need to address not only the resignation of Las Vegas Sheriff Doug Gillespie, but also the resignation and possible prosecution of officers whom implement this policy, as well as the authors of such statutes and policies.
In addition, to these failed and criminal policies are the reports we have received of Clark County Judges showing favoritism and special treatment for LVMPD officers who are arrested, by issuing them Orders of Release (OR) without first having to post any bail, allowing the use of special phones for incarcerated officers, and being processed more quickly than every other citizen. We would remind our elected officials that we are ALL equal under the law.
On the issue of officers who are arrested, recently Gillespie stated "I am given daily reports of officers who are incarcerated." Are LVMPD officers committing crimes often enough to be arrested daily? Or, if not being arrested daily, are they being arrested often enough that a "daily" report is needed? If LVMPD officers who serve under Las Vegas Sheriff Doug Gillespie are so regularly breaking the law, the public should know who they are, and their records. This is a very serious issue that Mr. Wolfson is well within his duties to investigate, and owes it to Clark County citizens to do so.
We believe Mr. Wolfson to be a man of integrity, who respects and desires justice for the people of our County. We recognize the difficulty in standing up against a system that has a long time culture of being taken advantage of by corrupt and unscrupulous individuals who use their positions to further their own political agendas and careers.
Mr. Wolfson is a man who has the courage to fight for justice on behalf of the citizens of Clark County.
For More Information:
www.veteransinpolitics.org
##