Court Cases

Sebastian Filutowski sold his Camaro in a legitimate transaction and received payment in cryptocurrency, which he converted to U.S. dollars. LVMPD later froze and seized more than $50,000 from his bank account through its Cyber Investigative Group policy. Under that policy, detectives can seek a warrant without notifying the property owner, classify the person as a “secondary victim,” and transfer the money to another person without filing a forfeiture case or providing an adversarial hearing. Filutowski filed a lawsuit seeking the return of his property and an order blocking law enforcement from using property seizure practices that deny people due process. The district court ordered LVMPD to return his money but denied his request for a permanent injunction. Filutowski appealed that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. We filed an amicus brief, in partnership with Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, because law enforcement should not be allowed to bypass due process through internal policies that function like civil forfeiture while avoiding forfeiture safeguards. In our brief, we argue that LVMPD’s Cyber Investigative Group policy has the same real-world impact as civil forfeiture: a person loses access to their property and must fight the government to recover it. We also argue that the harm occurs when the property is taken, not only after someone has exhausted every possible legal remedy. Returning money months later does not erase the violation or the cost of being forced to litigate for basic constitutional protections.

In 2021, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) stopped Lara while he was driving through Nevada to visit his daughters in California. During the stop, officers seized over $85,000 in cash, which was his life savings. Lara was not arrested, charged with a crime, or issued a ticket. Instead of following Nevada’s civil forfeiture process, NHP routed the money through the federal adoption and equitable sharing program. Through that program, state and local law enforcement agencies can transfer seized property to the federal government and later receive a portion of the proceeds. Under civil forfeiture, the government takes people’s property, sometimes even when they have not been convicted of a crime. This invites abuse, and so Nevada law includes protections for property owners facing civil forfeiture, including court oversight, deadlines, and a higher burden of proof. Those protections are imperfect but help limit abuse. Federal civil forfeiture does not have the same protections. We filed an amicus brief in support of Stephen Lara. In our amicus brief, we argue that law enforcement should not be able to evade Nevada’s civil forfeiture laws through federal adoption or equitable sharing. Civil forfeiture already creates dangerous financial incentives because agencies can benefit from the property they seize. Those incentives are even stronger when agencies can use the federal system to avoid Nevada’s already limited safeguards and keep more of the money they take.

Doneale Feazell was just 18 years old when he was accused of committing a homicide and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention. Alongside the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing an 18-year-old to die in prison violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. Nevada’s Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” Nevada prohibits punishment that is “cruel or unusual.” Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing. Nevada courts should do the same. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Feazell to die in prison is unconstitutional.

Despite only being 19 when accused of murder, Johnny Baggett was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention and raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that prevented him from proving his innocence. In conjunction with the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing a 19-year-old to life without parole violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. The Nevada Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," Nevada prohibits punishment that is "cruel or unusual." Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Baggett to die in prison is unconstitutional.

The ACLU of Nevada, alongside Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, filed an amicus brief asking the court to strengthen due process protections and ensure defendants receive fair trials. In this case, the state made mid-trial disclosures of critical evidence—information that could have helped the defense. The state’s delayed disclosure hindered the defense’s ability to prepare an effective case, and the defendant is now asking that his conviction be reversed due to the state’s failure to meet its legal obligations to disclose evidence in a timely manner. Our amicus brief argues that the convictions should be overturned when delays in the disclosure of evidence violate a defendant’s right to Due Process, as well as when the State, in bad faith, fails to comply with Nevada discovery laws. UPDATE: On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the State of Nevada.

The ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit on behalf of Lance Downes-Covington, who was unlawfully stopped and detained by Las Vegas City Marshals. In April 2023, Las Vegas Marshal Sergio Guzman stopped Lance Downes-Covington, citing an alleged traffic code violation. Despite complying with the marshals’ instructions, Downes-Covington was threatened with a handgun and a taser, forcibly handcuffed, and violently slammed to the ground. He was taken to the Las Vegas city jail and then transferred to University Medical Center to be treated for injuries received during the arrest. The charges against Downes-Covington were eventually dismissed. General traffic enforcement falls outside the Las Vegas marshals' jurisdiction, and their actions violated our client’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The complaint also alleges civil rights violations for excessive force, prolonged detention, and false arrest and imprisonment. Guzman and the Las Vegas marshals were named as plaintiffs in a separate, unaffiliated civil rights case in March. The Nevada Legislature this year did not move forward a proposed bill to adjust the jurisdiction and authority of municipal agencies such as the Las Vegas marshals. We are seeking an order from the court declaring that the Las Vegas City Marshals office misinterpreted the scope of its authority, as well as monetary damages and attorney fees.

The Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) is the largest jail in Nevada, housing thousands of people every year. The ACLU of Nevada has been investigating the treatment of people who are deaf and detained at the Detention Center since April 2021. Based on our investigation, we have determined that the Clark County Detention Center regularly denies basic aids and services to deaf people, including sign language, interpreters, videophones, and visual aids. These services are denied for even the most important communication needs, such as classes meant to rehabilitate prisoners, medical appointments, religious services, and even fire alarms. Failure to provide these services functionally places deaf people detained at CCDC in solitary confinement, unable to communicate with staff, other people who are detained, and anyone outside the facility. Based upon records we've received through public records requests, we know the Detention Center is aware it must offer these services, but still fails to do so. Mr. Jones, our client, is a deaf person who has spent over two years in CCDC. Again and again, he requested the services he is entitled to under federal law, and again and again, he was denied, rendering him unable to participate in group therapy, religious services, or other rehabilitative opportunities. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the United States Constitution, and the Nevada Constitution, the Detention Center is obligated to comply and offer appropriate aids and services to deaf people detained at the facility. Together, we are working to make sure he, nor any other person who is deaf and detained in jail, is treated that way again

Despite the passage of the Nevada Medical Marijuana Act and the Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana, the State, specifically the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, has failed to take action to comport with the will of Nevada voters, the Nevada Constitution, and Nevada Revised Statutes.