Equal Protection

"Thinking there's some sort of happy medium in a surveillance state is just a misnomer,” said the ACLU of Nevada's Athar Haseebullah.

Family of Ryan Anthony Warren-Hunt seeks answers after he was brutally beaten and stabbed to death while in state custody

Every Nevadan deserves to live with dignity, safety, and respect, regardless of who they are or who they love.

Across the nation, the federal government is attempting to dismantle long-standing protections for free speech, privacy, equality, and democracy. But freedom doesn’t just live in the courts or in Washington. It begins right here, in Nevada. Our cities, counties, and communities can be the first line of defense against federal overreach. ACLU of Nevada’s FIREwall for Freedom campaign is both a proactive and responsive strategy to protect our rights and our people from unlawful federal interference. When local leaders refuse to be complicit in unconstitutional acts, when city councils pass protections, and when neighbors look out for each other, that’s how democracy endures. Local policies, local leadership, and local courage can stop unconstitutional federal actions before they take root.

We’re suing the Nevada Department of Corrections and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for refusing to release public records related to the death of Ryan Anthony Warren-Hunt, who was brutally beaten and stabbed to death while incarcerated at Southern Desert Correctional Center. Warren-Hunt was killed in August 2025. After his death, we submitted public records requests to NDOC, LVMPD, and the coroner’s office seeking records related to the incident. The coroner’s office released responsive records with appropriate redactions. NDOC and LVMPD did not. NDOC refused to release records, claiming they were confidential because of an ongoing criminal investigation. LVMPD provided only partial and incomplete responses. Both agencies failed to clearly identify what records exist, making it difficult for us to know what information is being withheld. Under the Nevada Public Records Act, government agencies must release public records unless a specific legal exemption applies. Agencies cannot use vague claims or incomplete responses to avoid transparency. When records contain confidential information, agencies must redact protected information and release the rest. We’re asking the court to order NDOC and LVMPD to comply with Nevada law and release the requested records with any legally required redactions.

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 2023, a Reno police officer pulled over a driver and took her cell phone, claiming he needed to verify her insurance coverage. Instead, he unlawfully accessed and copied intimate photographs of the driver without her knowledge or consent. Nine months later, Sparks police detectives came to her home, showed her the photos, and confirmed they were taken from her phone. The driver, Bluth, sued to get access to public records about the investigation, but the lower court found that the investigative and privacy interests outweigh the public and personal interests, even without reviewing the records privately. The court only provided records related to her individual case. We filed an amicus brief, alongside the Boyd School of Law’s Survivor Representation & Advocacy Clinic, supporting Bluth’s appeal. We’re asking the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s decision and make clear that the government can’t use victims’ rights as an excuse to avoid accountability.