Challenge of police inquest policy argued in federal court

A federal judge for the first time Wednesday heard Las Vegas police officers' arguments against the revamped coroner's inquest process.

In the hearing before U.S. District Judge Philip Pro, lawyer Joshua Reisman argued that the new process, which includes an ombudsman to represent the family of the person killed by police, transformed a fact-finding process into an adversarial hearing that violated the officers' constitutional rights.

"It's a criminal investigation that lays the foundation for a criminal prosecution," Reisman said.

He represents officers Phillip Zaragoza, Michael Franco and Peter Kruse. They shot Benjamin Hunter Bowman in November 2010 as he held a knife to the throat of a bartender at a PT's Pub.

Their inquest was to be the first under the new procedures set by the Clark County Commission, which revamped the process amid complaints that it was too favorable for police.

The coroner has not had an inquest into a fatal police shooting since October 2010 because of delays in changing the process and subsequent legal challenges, leaving a backlog of 16 cases.

Reisman argued that the new inquest violates officers' rights to due process and unfairly exposes them to potential criminal and civil liability.

Lawyer Luther Snavely, who represents the justice of the peace, the coroner and the deputy district attorney who are named in the legal challenge, argued that the officers' challenge was premature because there had been no inquest under the new process, so none of the officers had been harmed.

"Could something go horribly wrong? Well, maybe, but something horribly wrong hasn't happened yet," Snavely said.

Both sides also argued over whether the case belonged in federal court.

Snavely, who moved the case to federal court from state court, said a federal judge would be immune from any political pressures surrounding what is a hot button issue in the community.

Reisman countered that one of the key issues was strictly a question under the state constitution, so the matter was best heard in state court.

Pro also heard an argument by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada to join the case. The judge took all the issues under advisement and will issue a written ruling.

The federal court challenge is one of two legal battles by law enforcement officers fighting the new inquest process.

A group of Nevada Highway Patrol troopers facing an inquest in the August 2010 death of a motorist on U.S. Highway 95 challenged their inquest in state court and used many of the same arguments.

But District Judge Joanna Kishner ruled against them three weeks ago, saying any potential harm to the troopers was only speculative and couldn't be considered as grounds to stop the inquest before it happened. An appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court in that case is expected.

Contact reporter Brian Haynes at bhaynes@review
journal.com or 702-383-0281.