Comments (63) | Add a comment
DA, police union push bill to scrap coroner's inquests; critics outraged
-
Gary Thompson/Las Vegas Review-Journal
Clark County District Attorney David Roger dislikes the coroner's inquest system. » Buy this photo
Tools
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Updated: Apr. 13, 2011 | 8:23 a.m.
Coroner's inquests into killings by police would be scrapped under a bill that the district attorney and local police union are trying to push through the Legislature.
Assembly Bill 320 would gut Clark County's 40-year-old system that investigates deaths at the hands of police, a contentious process that recently was revamped to quell outrage about questionable inquest findings.
A key change, giving families appointed counsel at hearings, has irked many officers who say they will refuse to participate rather than be cross-examined. Also, the district attorney says the new system will be time consuming and costly.
After losing the battle to fend off reforms with the County Commission, the police union and district attorney are now fighting in Carson City to dissolve inquests before the first case is heard under the new rules.
If the bill passes, the district attorney would investigate the deadly incidents and determine whether to file criminal charges, which he has the power to do now.
Information from the investigations would be made public.
The bill has inflamed civil rights advocates who argue that it would scuttle a system essential for holding police accountable in taking a human life.
Proponents of the legislation contend that inquests have strayed too far from the original intent of finding facts and have become adversarial, making officers not want to take part.
Introduced by Assemblyman John Hambrick, R-Las Vegas, the bill is in an early stage, with an uncertain fate.
The first hearing on the bill was held by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee on Monday. It will resume Thursday to gather more testimony.
The bill must make it out of its first committee by Friday, or it will be declared dead for the session.
ACLU CRITICIZES BILL
Scrapping the inquests would turn the clock back decades and waste the work of advisory panels who spent many hours hammering out ways to bolster the public's trust, said Maggie McLetchie, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
"I think it's inappropriate for the Legislature to circumvent the will of the people of Clark County," McLetchie said. "We haven't even had a chance to see how the new system works. All the important rights we fought for ... would be gone."
County commissioners approved reforms in January, such as allowing families representation at inquests, disclosing investigative files before hearings and eliminating jury verdicts.
But the first case using the new guidelines won't be heard for at least a month.
That probably will be the case of Eduardo Lopez-Hernandez, who died last year after Nevada Highway Patrol officers stunned him with electronic devices.
A local police union leader insists he isn't reacting just to the latest inquest overhaul, but to cumulative changes over the years.
"We've always believed the inquest process was not necessary," said Chris Collins, head of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association. "We lived with it, tolerated it. There are remedies to get to what you want without inquests."
The district attorney can look into a police killing and determine whether the officer did anything wrong, Collins said.
If the family is dissatisfied with the outcome and wants to delve deeper, it can file a lawsuit, he said.
Collins said no other county in the state has inquests, and few places in the nation do. He argued that local police should not be treated differently here than anywhere else.
But Richard Boulware, a local NAACP vice president, said Collins was mistaken.
Most local governments in the country have independent boards, prosecutors or task forces that investigate police killings. They are just not called inquests, he said.
"The officers don't understand that the community wants them to be held accountable for taking the life of an individual," Boulware said, adding that "very, very disturbing incidents" spurred reforms.
CASES THAT SPARKED REFORM
Commissioners formed an advisory panel last year to suggest changes in the system after inquest juries found officers justified in two contentious cases: those of Trevon Cole and Erik Scott.
Cole, 21, a small-time marijuana dealer, was shot and killed by Las Vegas police while unarmed in his apartment.
Scott, 38, a medical device salesman and West Point graduate, was killed outside a Costco in Summerlin by officers who said he drew a gun.
Collins, McLetchie and Boulware were among those on the panel.
About five years ago, police fatally shot 17-year-old murder suspect Swuave Lopez in the back while he was handcuffed and fleeing. An inquest jury found the shooting justified, spurring an outcry that led to the first inquest review panel being formed in 2006.
District Attorney David Roger said he disagreed with how the inquest system has been reshaped. The new procedures will make inquests more time-consuming and more expensive, Roger said.
Supplying the requisite two attorneys for each hearing will cost more than $100,000 yearly, he estimated. "I just don't have the resources."
Commissioner Steve Sisolak initiated the most reforms and later opposed giving suspects' families representation at inquests. Sisolak said he understood why police officers would be disenchanted.
"I see their side to it," Sisolak said. "I wish there could've been a common ground reached."
But Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said police should welcome more scrutiny to avoid the perception of secretive dealings behind closed doors.
"In this age of transparency, wouldn't they want to have more transparency?"
And if Roger wants to save money, he should quit pursuing so many death penalty cases, which has cost the county more than $20 million, she said.
Rory Reid, a former commissioner who voted for reforms, said it was unfortunate that the union "wants to do an end run around the process" just because it dislikes the changes that much of the public called for.
He doesn't think such a complex problem should be tossed to a busy Legislature to solve.
"We spent hours and hours on this," Reid said. "I don't see how the Legislature will have the time to devote to this, given all that's in front of them."
Contact reporter Scott Wyland at swyland@reviewjournal.com or 702-455-4519.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Tahoe DI "People seem to forget, or they don't know, that if an officer commits a "crime" by unlawfully taking someone's life, they will be "charged" just like any ordinary person who does the same thing" Unfortunately the statistics just don't support your theory. If I was found in my girlfriends bedroom holding a gun, while my GF's husband lay dead at my feet, you bet I would be charged. But not if I'm a cop. Cops are accused of crimes at just about the same level as the general public, but these allegations lead to criminal charges and convictions at about half the rate as the public and when convicted spend less than half the time behind bars as Joe Criminal. Case in point, a judge determined that Bryan Yant committed perjury in his attempt to get a warrant for a case completely unrelated to the Cole matter. It has been over a year and this criminal still has not been charged for this offense.
"officers who say they will refuse to participate rather than be cross-examined"--really? When a human life is taken--by the authorities, you're saying its too much to ask that others can question you after the fact?
Incredible.
I totally agree! Who do these public employee think they are?? Man, this is the problem, they think they are above the law!
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the Inquest is decided by a jury of citizens. Metro doesn't make the findings. The DA's office doesn't make the findings. The judge or hearing officer doesn't make the findings. The finding comes from a jury selected just like any other. I'm tired of hearing that it is a rubber stamp, it's slanted, etc etc. It is STILL citizens on the jury, and THEY made the decisions. It's the citizens we were trusting. But now, the verdict has been removed. What is the point of even going through the time, effort, and expense? Do away with it and start over, the CI is broken. It was never intended to be a trial, but it has been turned into one by people and organizations with political agendas. And by the way...to Dwayne.Quiney...who are you to be advocating violence and attacks on people just because you don't happen to agree with something? Stop throwing around ignorant threats, and save the space if you don't have anything sensible to contribute.
There is always someone who is not satisfied with the outcome of the inquests. Most big municipalities rely on the DA's office to make the call. The ACLU, NAACP and others won't be happy until the officer goes directly to trial. And it does not matter what race the officer is, the race card is always brought up. LVMPD does not want bad shootings, but to quote former Sheriff Kellar, "We have to recruit from the human race". The current system is a waste of time and money.
Where to start... I agree that the police inquest is a good idea that is flawed in practice. While officers are trained to a higher standard (believe it or not LVMPD are some of the best trained officers and as such are recruited by LAPD and other Larger metropolitian departments), They are still human and will protect them selves at all costs.
Now lets take a look at LVMPD's training. They have a 6 month academy and will not accept transfers from any other department. All officers must be trained by the LVMPD. They also have a year long probationary period at which time they can be fired for almost any reason.
People don't seem to understand that Police Officers are just like everyone esle, and as such there are bound to be some bad apples. Don't judge the bushel on a few apples.
What are we supposed to do when the legal professionals we leave in charge of our Justice System are, in fact, the crooks? NSC Article 1 §8.1 provides an answer.
No person shall be tried for .. [an] infamous crime .. except on presentment or indictment [by a grand jury, DA, AG] ...
Some DA/AG empaneled grand juries have more latitude, wherein they can venture far BEYOND the scope of where the politically controlled prosecutor wants to keep them.
When the GJ completes its probe it issues a PRESENTMENT, which is a public record of their findings (DA/AG can't bury it) which might include all sorts of indictments not imagined by the DA/AG who empaneled them. Maybe even one calling for an indictment of the DA/AG himself!
This was the traditional way for the public to fight government corruption. Of course the lawyers have put the kaibosh on this cause-of-justice, citizen power also.
if the corners inquest bill is gutted there will be
attacks upon police who think they r above the law.
look what is happening in northwest and mountain
regions of u.s.a. .
people r not going to take it anymore, govt.
n public officals think they r better than the citizens
who pay their salary.
they kill n r not suppose to b investigated?
@Hiker859 - excellent posts...
"officers who say they will refuse to participate rather than be cross-examined"--really? When a human life is taken--by the authorities, you're saying its too much to ask that others can question you after the fact?
Incredible.
This is a democracy. The authorities do their jobs but they do not rule without the consent of citizens. There must always be a mechanism for accountability. An inquest where the decedents advocates get to ask questions is hardly too much to bear.
Unless you believe--you have the "right" to do whatever you deem "necessary" in order to do your job. And no one is buying that.
The Inquest has become a farce. Opponents of the police will never be satisfied until they have the power to hang cops just doing their job. The "civil rights organizations" have turned what was supposed to be a fact finding hearing into a trial. If the cops can be cross examined, they would have to have an attorney to look out for their rights...that is simple constitutional law. That is a trial. They want cops to stand trial when they have not even been charged with a crime. ANY defense attorney worthy of the name would certainly advise their client not to be involved in that. The cops I know are concerned with the fact that their rights are being legislated away by people with a political agenda. They don't want to be sacrificed on the altar of someone's ambition and I don't blame them. The whole thing is now a dog and pony show anyway...the verdict has now been removed from the process, so what is the point anyway? The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Most police shootings are found justifiable by citizen juries because in the totality of the circumstances, reasonable people think the cops did the right thing. There are no "dark conspiracies". As for a Grand Jury being empaneled to review these incidents, that would never work because the workings of a Grand Jury are secret and cannot by law be released to the public. Imagine the scream from the ACLU and NAACP then when the Grand Jury returns a no bill (acquits) a police officer.