What are they hiding? Metro won’t release public records from fatal 12-car crash

Las Vegas police are withholding public records from a Nov. 18 fatal northwest valley crash in which a teenager is accused of intentionally ramming into 11 vehicles stopped at a red light.

These denials come as the Metropolitan Police Department increasingly declares records sought by the public should be kept secret and as a pending Nevada Supreme Court case could lead to a ruling that records related to open criminal cases or investigations may be kept secret.

Since the collision, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has sought from the Metropolitan Police Department recordings of 911 calls, body camera footage from responding officers, and video of the crash itself, which is mentioned in the arrest report of the suspect, 19-year-old Jose Gutierrez.

Three people died as a result of the crash. Gutierrez’s pregnant girlfriend, Adilene Duran Rincon, 20, and a driver from another vehicle, Edward Garcia, 38, were killed. Vanessa Lainez Vasquez, 25, was a passenger in another vehicle involved in the crash and died Thursday. Her husband also was critically injured, authorities have said.

In response to the request for 911 recordings, Metro’s public records unit said the department’s Fatal Detail “has denied the request. … It was advised that they are still conducting their investigation and need additional time to complete it.”

The agency issued a similar response regarding the body camera footage.

“Your request for body worn camera video(s) and or photo(s) has been denied due to an OPEN/ACTIVE investigation with the LVMPD Traffic Bureau/ Fatal Unit,” the public records unit said. “BWC videos and or Photos will not be released until all investigations and or court cases are closed.”

Metro has agreed to release body camera footage from an October traffic stop in which Gutierrez was cited for speeding. According to online court records, that traffic case is still open.

‘Records generally presumed open’

The department also attached a multi-page memorandum outlining what it described as a “law enforcement privilege” to justify withholding the records.

However, Review-Journal Chief Legal Officer Ben Lipman said that there is “no such thing as” blanket law enforcement privilege.

“While there may be instances where some information may be withheld, there must be a reason besides the fact that it relates to an open investigation,” Lipman added.

Under the Nevada Public Records Act, Metro’s memo said, a law enforcement agency may deny disclosure when its interest in keeping records confidential clearly outweighs the public’s right to access. The document also said that records are generally presumed open, exemptions should be narrowly applied, and redactions are preferred over complete withholding to “promote government transparency.”

Metro said it would not provide video of the crash because the footage belongs to a business near the collision site, noting that the department “does NOT release third-party footage without the owner’s consent.”

Lipman also disagreed with this position.

“Metro’s argument that a record they received from an outside source, rather than one they created themselves, is not a public record would mean that any record a governmental entity receives from an outside source is not a public record,” Lipman said. “But the law says that any record in the custody or control of a governmental entity is a public record and must be turned over, unless there is a specific other law that makes it confidential.”

Generally, records involving trade secrets, medical information, and financial data are typically considered confidential, though Lipman noted that other documents may also meet that standard.

“There are a number of laws out there that make some specific types of records received from third parties confidential,” Lipman said. “Those laws would be entirely unnecessary if Metro were correct that such records are not public records to begin with. Therefore, Metro’s take on the law is incorrect.”

Prosecutors previously said that this footage would be instrumental in proving that Gutierrez, who has been charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder, intentionally caused the crash.

“We would need a notarized letter from the owner approving the release of their footage to you,” the department said. “Please feel free to contact the business directly to obtain the video you’re requesting.”

When asked which business owned the footage, Metro said it had “no business name listed.” The Las Vegas Justice Court has since provided the video of the crash, after it was filed as an exhibit in Gutierrez’s case.

Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook noted that 911 audio is routinely released soon after homicides and fatal vehicle crashes. In June, Las Vegas police released more than 80 minutes of calls made after an Arizona couple was fatally shot on the Strip during a YouTube livestream. That audio was released four days after the shooting.

“It’s been more than two weeks since the crash,” Cook said. “There is no lawful reason to withhold the calls made in response to this crash, because public release of 911 audio has no impact on an investigation or a prosecution.”

Redactions

Metro released Gutierrez’s arrest report within days of the 12-vehicle collision and has since provided the associated crash report, both of which contain redactions.

Months before the crash, Gutierrez was arrested for resisting a public officer. When the Review-Journal requested body camera footage from the arrest, Metro shared a 13-minute video, with approximately six minutes blacked out and the audio muted.

Asked about the denials and redactions, Sheriff Kevin McMahill said Metro’s main obstacle to releasing certain records to the public is ensuring compliance with the law.

“I have an entire team of people who work on this redaction stuff. Honestly, if I could get the law to say, ‘just give it to them,’ I’d give it to you, because I’m sick of it. And I’m sure you’re sick of getting this redacted stuff that takes forever,” McMahill said.

The sheriff reiterated previous department communications, saying that if an investigation was “open and active,” the public was not entitled to access it. A Review-Journal reporter asked McMahill to clarify Metro’s definition of “open and active,” to which he responded, “It’s pretty self-explanatory.”

McMahill also said, “I think most of the time, by the time we’ve submitted a case [to prosecutors] and it’s been accepted, I don’t know that I would call it open and active anymore, but I guarantee there are lots of people who argue that with me.”

The “What Are They Hiding?” column was created to educate Nevadans about transparency laws, inform readers about Review-Journal coverage being stymied by bureaucracies and shame public officials into being open with the hardworking people who pay all of government’s bills. Were you wrongly denied access to public records? Share your story with us at whataretheyhiding@reviewjournal.com.

Contact Akiya Dillon at adillon@reviewjournal.com. Staff writer Noble Brigham contributed to this report.