State Supreme Court hears inquest arguments

The yearlong legal battle over the revamped coroner's inquest system reached the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday, with supporters and opponents making their cases before the high court's seven justices.

Much of the questioning and argument in the court's chambers at the Regional Justice Center focused on the role of the inquest and whether a justice of the peace had the power to preside over it.

Lawyer Joshua Reisman, who represents the officers facing inquests, argued that the hearing into fatal police shootings and other deaths violates officers' constitutional rights. With the addition of an ombudsman who can question witnesses on behalf of the dead person's family, the new process has become an adversarial, trial-like hearing rather than a fact-finding hearing, he said.

The hearing, which takes place in a courtroom with a judge, jury and prosecutors, would function like a criminal probe without giving officers their constitutional protections, he said.

"It's a criminal investigation," Reisman said. "If it's not, what is it? It's a dog-and-pony show."

Supporters of the new process defended it as an important way to boost public trust in police and to review policies and procedures that could be changed to prevent deaths at the hands of cops.

The case before the Supreme Court involves the inquest into the death of Eduardo Lopez-Hernandez, who died in August 2010 during a drawn-out fight and struggle with Highway Patrol troopers on U.S. Highway 95. During their struggle to get the erratically behaving 21-year-old into custody, troopers shocked him multiple times with a Taser stun gun.

Taser records showed the weapon was used 19 times.

The inquest was was set for September but was postponed by the troopers' legal challenge. District Judge Joanna Kishner ruled against them and allowed the inquest to proceed.

The new hearing was set for early May but was halted by the Supreme Court until justices could hear the troopers' appeal.

Several justices questioned the role of the inquest because its purpose is not spelled out in the county ordinance creating it. Justice James Hardesty dwelled on that point for both sides, noting that the court was left to speculate on what the hearing's purpose is because it wasn't explicitly written in the law.

Reisman said in the absence of that language, the only interpretation should be based on centuries of practice and common law where inquests served as criminal investigations.

"You have to interpret this ordinance within the context of 200 years of history," Reisman said.

The county's lawyer, Luther Snavely, said the inquest served as a fact-finding hearing that provided information to the public and also helped the coroner determine the cause of death.

Chief Justice Michael Cherry, who noted he had served as a coroner's inquest hearing master in his days as a private lawyer, questioned the need for the inquest as a simple fact-finding exercise.

"Why do we need it? What's it for?" he asked.

Justice Kristina Pickering said the absence of a stated purpose leaves it up for interpretation and speculation.

"They say they aren't to be findings of fault, but I don't know what the purpose would be other than to find fault," she said.

Kristina Rogers, with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, told the court that the inquest served to enhance transparency, accountability and public trust after police officers are involved in fatal shootings and other deaths.

"Those are admirable objectives, not one of which is expressed in this ordinance," Hardesty said.

Rogers said the system's intent is clear based on the discussions and history of the inquest changes enacted by the county commission in late 2010.

Several justices also questioned the role of the justice of the peace in overseeing the inquest, which seems to violate state law.

Reisman said the law gives justices of the peace the ability to preside over coroner's inquests, but not in counties such as Clark, which have an appointed coroner. In assigning a justice of the peace to preside over the inquest, the county commission overstepped its powers, he said.

"Only the Legislature, not Clark County, can determine the jurisdiction of the Justice Court," he said.

Snavely said it would be "absurd" to say that it was constitutional for a county, such as Nye, to allow a justice of the peace to oversee an inquest while making it unconstitutional in the neighboring county simply because that county hired a coroner.

If the Legislature intended to ban justices of the peace from hearing inquests, it would have explicitly done so, but it didn't, he said.

After the hearing, both sides promised they wouldn't give up the fight no matter what the state Supreme Court decides.

"We will continue to defend officers' rights all the way to the United States Supreme Court," said Chris Collins, head of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association.

The ACLU's Rogers promised a similar fight.

"The ACLU won't rest until the Metropolitan Police Department, and other police departments around the country, are held to the standard of transparency and public accountability," she said.

The PPA, which represents 2,400 rank-and-file Las Vegas officers, has led the fight against the revamped inquest, which was changed in late 2010 after two controversial police shootings.

The PPA is backing another legal challenge of the inquest in a federal case involving three Las Vegas police officers who fatally shot a robber who was holding a bartender at knifepoint. U.S. District Judge Philip Pro ruled against the officers, and the case is under appeal at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.