Court upholds law in failing to stop

CARSON CITY -- The constitutionality of a state law making it a felony for a driver to put other people at risk by failing to stop for a police officer was upheld Thursday by the Nevada Supreme Court.

The ruling came in the case of Las Vegas resident Anthony Nelson, who was convicted by a jury of three felony counts, including failing to stop, in connection with an armed robbery committed by an accomplice.

Nelson and Matthew Neifeld were arrested after a robbery at gunpoint was reported via a 911 call. Shortly after a police officer interviewed the victim and her friends, a black Ford Thunderbird matching the description of the vehicle used in the crime was spotted by police parked along the shoulder of Boulder Highway.

When a police officer parked pulled up behind the Thunderbird, the driver drove away.

Nelson did not stop when several police officers joined the first officer in a pursuit with their lights and sirens on.

At one point Nelson was driving in excess of 90 mph and running red lights on Boulder Highway. Nelson was finally cornered on a dead end road and arrested along with Neifeld.

Simply failing to stop for a police officer is a misdemeanor. But when a person fails to stop and subsequently operates a vehicle in a manner which endangers or is likely to endanger another person or property, the crime is a felony under Nevada law.

Nelson challenged the constitutionality of the felony failure to stop law, arguing the use of the word "endanger" was unconstitutionally vague and did not give fair notice of what conduct was prohibited.

But in the unanimous opinion by Justice James Hardesty, the court said the law is specific enough to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

While the law does not define specific acts that are prohibited, it is not unconstitutionally vague "because individuals of ordinary intelligence can easily discern whether their operation of a vehicle while fleeing from a police vehicle places life or property in danger," Hardesty noted.

Nelson also questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime. The court said the charge was proved to the jury.

"The violation of a traffic signal indicating that a stop is required -- at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour -- clearly creates the potential for violent contact with human beings and other vehicles," the court said.

Nelson's other claims were determined to be without merit and so were rejected by the court.