Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011 | 12:47 p.m.
A state judicial ethics panel determined last week that it wouldn't be permissible for a Nevada district judge to use excess campaign funds to purchase a home security system even if the judge feared for his own safety or that of his family.
The Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics, which issues advisory opinions to the Nevada Supreme Court, came to that conclusion in response to a question from an unnamed judge. The judge posed the hypothetical question of whether such use of excess campaign funds would be permissible if a judge had greater safety concerns following a decision in a case or performance of judicial duties.
The ethics panel concluded that anyone can have similar safety concerns that warrant purchase of a home security system. But because the panel's opinion is advisory, it is not binding on the courts.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy