Judge Tierra Jones sentenced a man to the maximum sentence for helping hide the body of Lesly Palacios. [RJ]
Judge Kathleen Delaney ruled that Metro’s zero-tolerance policy on marijuana is untenable. [Marijuana Moment]
Judge Nancy Allf tosses Ahern Hotel lawsuit over Covid capacity limitations. [Fox5Vegas]
Clark County DA’s office decides Metro officer will not face charges after arrest in an organized theft ring. [KTNV]
Jury awards $15.6 million in Washoe County mesothelioma case. [PRNewswire]
The First Amendment and public meetings: it’s complicated. [Nevada Current]
Judge rules Nevada Department of Wildlife must unblock man from their Facebook page. [Tahoe Daily Tribune]
Here’s an interesting article about people who went to the UH law school being appointed as judges in Hawaii–mentioning that in Nevada, few local grads are on the bench. [Honolulu Civil Beat]
Once again on BlueJeans for 9:30 status checks (its now 10:40), court not even done with 9:00 calendar. Why, please tell me why there are calendar calls versus specific dates and times.
Surprised no mention of the Southern Nevada Housing Authority's shot show. Is this the local HUD office? If so, that is a shit show.
Guest
Anonymous
August 16, 2021 9:45 pm
I understand and respect Judge Delaney's reasoned ruling, as to METRO's no tolerance policy on pot, but wish to toss something out there for consideration.
The fact that Nevada has de-criminalized marijuana possession(and that "de-criminalization" itself is a qualified statement, as there could be conflicting federal implications and involvement, etc.)is it not often appropriate to hold law enforcement officers to a somewhat higher standard of conduct?
Serving in such a sensitive and critical position, it is important to conduct oneself by certain standards.
For example, if an average citizen wants to travel out to a ranch outside Ely and secure the services of a prostitute, they presumably cannot be prosecuted based on that activity being legal in that county.
But if an officer frequents such an establishment, and METRO wishes to forbid their officers from engaging in that conduct, should METRO not have the right to expect standards of conduct beyond an officer not actively committing crimes?
As we all well know,rights are not absolute and can be somewhat fluid and change by context and role. A High School teacher in Nevada can be prosecuted for relations with a 17 or 18 year old student, even though someone not in that teacher role, or special relationship role, could not be so prosecuted.
So, even though your neighbor can't be prosecuted for smoking pot while they visit the Chicken Ranch, shouldn't METRO not have the right to forbid their officers from doing so?
I respect Judge Delaney and I understand and respect her decision. But I do wish to pose the question of whether it is reasonable that rights can be affected or somewhat limited by one's role or position.
I think such restrictions sometimes are reasonable and for a solid purpose.
But we always must guard against different people being treated differently, without some compelling public, societal purpose for doing so.
2:56. It's very tricky, because yes, pot is now legal, so in that sense it is proper, as you have done, to analogize its usage to cigarettes and alcohol. And yes it would be absurd to discipline an officer for using cigarettes or booze(unless there is some resulting crime from being drunk, etc.).
But, pot, only recently de-criminalized, has long been a highly controversial issue in society. Some believe prolonged and consistent usage permanently alters and damages a personality, destroys initiative, and is a gateway drug, etc.
I personally don't believe that, but many do, and many of them have long been in power.
But the destructive effects of drinking or smoking are more long range personal health risks(if there is no corresponding crime such as DUI), and we generally, in our society, let people screw up their bodies and health however they want, if legally done.
So, 2:56 would presumably reply: then why not let them also screw up their long-term well-being with prolonged and consistent pot usage as it's now legal?
bonus question for you – if we care about holding police officers to a "higher standard" maybe we should start with a higher standard for their actual job duties before we can about off the clock recreational activities. E.g., 1983 suits, etc.
(not to turn this into a politics/police thing, just seemed worth pointing out)
David Schubert was a genuine tragedy but the NSC did not have any problem giving longer sentences based upon "higher standard" for prosecutors. NSC had its chance to take a stand and it punted.
Stigmatizing and criminalizing marijuana had more to do with the fact that communities of color were the primary users than anything else. Doctors have known for over 100 years that marijuana does NOT cause delusions or insanity or further drug use. The claims of reefer madness, insanity, and gateway drug use were all manufactured by white bureaucrats looking for a way to control and undermine the growing civil rights movement in this country after WWII.
>“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
>“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Yep.
Guest
Anonymous
August 16, 2021 9:56 pm
2:45, I also understand and respect her ruling, but these type of restrictions, or holding officers to a somewhat "higher standard" are nothing new, although this is presumably a case of first impression in Nevada as to the specific issue of actions against a METRO officer concerning pot usage.
But officers have been previously been precluded from taking actions which are otherwise legal.
You raise the issue of prostitution. I could well be wrong, and am eager to be corrected if I am, but I believe METRO has long taken a negative, prohibitive stance against their officers engaging in prostitution–obviously in Clark County because it is clearly illegal and will lead to the officer presumably being prosecuted(and probable,or highly possible, loss of employment).
Now, if instead of Clark County,an officer engages in such act near Ely, this would of course not result in a criminal prosecution, but I have always understood that it can and does often impact their professional/employment status.
The archaic patriarchal "moral" codes gotta go. We are not the Taliban. If an officer wants to rent out his or her booty on the weekends to visitors, that's his or her business. Who cares if the officers wish to kick back and smoke a fatty after a long shift, especially if it was a double shift of law enforcement followed by paid booty calls.
In fact, I think I know what I want for my birthday! Something about the uniform and the cuffs is exciting. Meow. Cuff me officer, I've been bad!
I assume that METRO doesn't want its officers breaking Federal Law under any circumstances. If an Officer heads to Nye County for some "companionship", he or she isn't breaking any law. Period. However, it is always breaking Federal Law to Purchase or Possess marijuana no matter where you are.
I dont really have an opinion on it. I think MJ should be legal and treated as alcohol. (Of course, we need a comprehensive and indisputable "impairment" test and standard, like alcohol. So there is that.
Guest
Anonymous
August 17, 2021 12:09 am
I am sorry to see that this law blog has been overrun by political trolls. So I am taking a break from it. Hopefully the content will turn around soon.
Agreed. I've tried to be (fairly) patient over the past few months – especially given the election cycle – but I have finally had just about all I can stand of the political trolling – from all sides. To that end, I intend to moderate the comments heavier until I feel like we've gotten our little Las Vegas law blawg back on track. I'm sure that will make the trolls mad (and louder, at least for a while), but to be honest, the people who have a problem with this goal are the people who I think we can stand to do without. I can't promise that I won't inadvertently cull some legitimate comments, but I can promise I'll do my level best to be fair as I can be while trying to save this place from turning into the RJ comment section (which had to be shut down because of trolls).
Once again on BlueJeans for 9:30 status checks (its now 10:40), court not even done with 9:00 calendar. Why, please tell me why there are calendar calls versus specific dates and times.
What department?
CATTLE calls versus specific dates and times
Cattle calls? Probably because there are more cases than there are judges to hear them. Efficient resource allocation. Or so they say/think.
Republic Services is foreclosing on $500 trash bills so it can pay Sean Claggett that big jury award he is spouting about he is going to get.
Their timing is just perfect.
Can someone p;ease get me a spoon, thank you!
Surprised no mention of the Southern Nevada Housing Authority's shot show. Is this the local HUD office? If so, that is a shit show.
I understand and respect Judge Delaney's reasoned ruling, as to METRO's no tolerance policy on pot, but wish to toss something out there for consideration.
The fact that Nevada has de-criminalized marijuana possession(and that "de-criminalization" itself is a qualified statement, as there could be conflicting federal implications and involvement, etc.)is it not often appropriate to hold law enforcement officers to a somewhat higher standard of conduct?
Serving in such a sensitive and critical position, it is important to conduct oneself by certain standards.
For example, if an average citizen wants to travel out to a ranch outside Ely and secure the services of a prostitute, they presumably cannot be prosecuted based on that activity being legal in that county.
But if an officer frequents such an establishment, and METRO wishes to forbid their officers from engaging in that conduct, should METRO not have the right to expect standards of conduct beyond an officer not actively committing crimes?
As we all well know,rights are not absolute and can be somewhat fluid and change by context and role. A High School teacher in Nevada can be prosecuted for relations with a 17 or 18 year old student, even though someone not in that teacher role, or special relationship role, could not be so prosecuted.
So, even though your neighbor can't be prosecuted for smoking pot while they visit the Chicken Ranch, shouldn't METRO not have the right to forbid their officers from doing so?
I respect Judge Delaney and I understand and respect her decision. But I do wish to pose the question of whether it is reasonable that rights can be affected or somewhat limited by one's role or position.
I think such restrictions sometimes are reasonable and for a solid purpose.
But we always must guard against different people being treated differently, without some compelling public, societal purpose for doing so.
What do you guys think?
>Is it not often appropriate to hold law enforcement officers to a somewhat higher standard of conduct?
Sure, but unless you're going to prevent cops from smoking cigarettes or drinking alochol, how are you also going to prohibit them from smoking weed?
What defines the "higher standard of conduct"?
2:56. It's very tricky, because yes, pot is now legal, so in that sense it is proper, as you have done, to analogize its usage to cigarettes and alcohol. And yes it would be absurd to discipline an officer for using cigarettes or booze(unless there is some resulting crime from being drunk, etc.).
But, pot, only recently de-criminalized, has long been a highly controversial issue in society. Some believe prolonged and consistent usage permanently alters and damages a personality, destroys initiative, and is a gateway drug, etc.
I personally don't believe that, but many do, and many of them have long been in power.
But the destructive effects of drinking or smoking are more long range personal health risks(if there is no corresponding crime such as DUI), and we generally, in our society, let people screw up their bodies and health however they want, if legally done.
So, 2:56 would presumably reply: then why not let them also screw up their long-term well-being with prolonged and consistent pot usage as it's now legal?
And I have no adequate answer to that.
2:56 here,
bonus question for you – if we care about holding police officers to a "higher standard" maybe we should start with a higher standard for their actual job duties before we can about off the clock recreational activities. E.g., 1983 suits, etc.
(not to turn this into a politics/police thing, just seemed worth pointing out)
Carolyn Ellsworth would have sentenced him to 2 years of hard labor. She believed in that "higher standard" crap.
Yes she did. Ask David Schubert.
David Schubert was a genuine tragedy but the NSC did not have any problem giving longer sentences based upon "higher standard" for prosecutors. NSC had its chance to take a stand and it punted.
Stigmatizing and criminalizing marijuana had more to do with the fact that communities of color were the primary users than anything else. Doctors have known for over 100 years that marijuana does NOT cause delusions or insanity or further drug use. The claims of reefer madness, insanity, and gateway drug use were all manufactured by white bureaucrats looking for a way to control and undermine the growing civil rights movement in this country after WWII.
>“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
>“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Yep.
2:45, I also understand and respect her ruling, but these type of restrictions, or holding officers to a somewhat "higher standard" are nothing new, although this is presumably a case of first impression in Nevada as to the specific issue of actions against a METRO officer concerning pot usage.
But officers have been previously been precluded from taking actions which are otherwise legal.
You raise the issue of prostitution. I could well be wrong, and am eager to be corrected if I am, but I believe METRO has long taken a negative, prohibitive stance against their officers engaging in prostitution–obviously in Clark County because it is clearly illegal and will lead to the officer presumably being prosecuted(and probable,or highly possible, loss of employment).
Now, if instead of Clark County,an officer engages in such act near Ely, this would of course not result in a criminal prosecution, but I have always understood that it can and does often impact their professional/employment status.
The archaic patriarchal "moral" codes gotta go. We are not the Taliban. If an officer wants to rent out his or her booty on the weekends to visitors, that's his or her business. Who cares if the officers wish to kick back and smoke a fatty after a long shift, especially if it was a double shift of law enforcement followed by paid booty calls.
In fact, I think I know what I want for my birthday! Something about the uniform and the cuffs is exciting. Meow. Cuff me officer, I've been bad!
I assume that METRO doesn't want its officers breaking Federal Law under any circumstances. If an Officer heads to Nye County for some "companionship", he or she isn't breaking any law. Period. However, it is always breaking Federal Law to Purchase or Possess marijuana no matter where you are.
I dont really have an opinion on it. I think MJ should be legal and treated as alcohol. (Of course, we need a comprehensive and indisputable "impairment" test and standard, like alcohol. So there is that.
I am sorry to see that this law blog has been overrun by political trolls. So I am taking a break from it. Hopefully the content will turn around soon.
Agreed. I've tried to be (fairly) patient over the past few months – especially given the election cycle – but I have finally had just about all I can stand of the political trolling – from all sides. To that end, I intend to moderate the comments heavier until I feel like we've gotten our little Las Vegas law blawg back on track. I'm sure that will make the trolls mad (and louder, at least for a while), but to be honest, the people who have a problem with this goal are the people who I think we can stand to do without. I can't promise that I won't inadvertently cull some legitimate comments, but I can promise I'll do my level best to be fair as I can be while trying to save this place from turning into the RJ comment section (which had to be shut down because of trolls).
I think that's the right call – thanks dude!
Thanks for the support, pal!
You have my support too, for what it's worth.
^^Echoing 8:05…
Good idea.
100 percent. Please save us Law Dawg, you're our only hope.
Def the right call
Anyone know if and where/when there will be a public goodbye ceremony for the incredible Judge Gonzalez (G-Force)? I'd love to go and pay my respects.
Courtroom 3E everyday through September 7th.