Court Cases

In this joint filing by the ACLU of Nevada and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, we argue that the state can't make it harder for people working toward rehabilitation to reenter society by imposing excessive fines and fees if they are already meeting the requirements of their parole. The Nevada Division of Parole and Probation recommends early discharge from parole if a supervised person meets all applicable state law conditions. One condition requires the person to be current with the supervision fees required by probation or parole. A Clark County Court found that the subject of this case, Valentine, fulfilled this condition and had proven he experienced economic hardship and was eligible for relief. On appeal, the state claims that Valentine was ineligible for early discharge because he had not paid off the entire balance of supervision fees. No one disputes that Valentine paid his fees on time, but the parole agency diverted those payments to cover his outstanding restitution balance instead. In the amicus brief, we pointed out that: State law only requires a person to be current with supervision fee payments, not that they are paid off in full. The Division of Parole and Probation has no legal basis to transfer a person's supervision fees to restitution. There was no court order and no statute authorizing the agency to do it. UPDATE: On March 28, 2024, the Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

The ACLU of Nevada is representing seven incarcerated firefighters who were badly burned while working as wildland firefighters as part of a program in which the Nevada Division of Forestry and the Nevada Department of Corrections press incarcerated people into dangerous service on behalf of the state.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed this case on behalf of eleven individuals whose constitutional rights were violated by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Rio Hotel. On August 19, 2018, our plaintiffs were having a birthday celebration at the Rio Hotel. Each of the 34 guests in attendance that evening is Black. LVMPD, aided by Rio staff, stormed in with no warrant and no reason to believe that any crime was being committed. Despite having no reasonable suspicion, LVMPD officers handcuffed and searched every single guest in attendance. Each guest was made to sit in the hallway of the Rio handcuffed with no access to food, water, or restroom facilities for up to 6 hours. LVMPD alleged that the birthday party was a “gang party,” but no guest was arrested for any criminal gang activity. We’re suing to end LVMPD’s racially discriminatory practice of indiscriminately and unlawfully detaining and searching individuals in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.