ACLU of Nevada files petition seeking full Nevada Supreme Court review of decision allowing government to withhold investigative records from public

LAS VEGAS – The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has filed a petition asking the full Nevada Supreme Court to reconsider a recent decision made by a smaller panel of three justices that allows the Clark County School District to withhold key public records related to a widely publicized use-of-force incident involving a school police officer. The petition requests en banc reconsideration, meaning review by the full Nevada Supreme Court, arguing that the panel’s ruling conflicts with longstanding precedent and raises significant concerns about government transparency and public accountability.

The case stems from a February 2023 incident in which a Clark County School District police officer was recorded forcibly restraining a student outside Durango High School. After the video circulated widely, the ACLU of Nevada requested records related to the district’s internal investigation. While nearly all materials, including bodycam footage related to the incident, were released after ACLU of Nevada spent more than a year fighting to access the records surrounding the incident, CCSD withheld the contents of an investigative file it claims is confidential, despite the fact that no details surrounding the investigation were made public and no action was taken against the officer involved. In the aftermath of the release of the bodycam footage, which debunked CCSD’s arguments surrounding the stop of the students, CCSD agreed to pay the impacted students, represented by ACLU of Nevada, $1 million.

In appealing the district court's decision regarding the withholding of the investigative file, the ACLU of Nevada argued that CCSD’s position would allow law enforcement to bury misconduct in an investigative file, and that the records should instead be released with redaction permitted for specific, confidential information. In denying the ACLU’s request, a three-judge panel from the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that Nevada law allows agencies to withhold entire investigative files when no disciplinary action is taken.

In its petition, the ACLU of Nevada argues that this reading of the law is inconsistent with the Nevada Public Records Act, which requires government records to be accessible unless the Legislature has clearly and explicitly created an exemption. The petition further warns that the panel’s decision creates a dangerous precedent by allowing agencies to shield records simply by labeling them part of an “investigative file,” even when those records include materials the officer already had access to, such as emails, statements, and recorded interviews.

ACLU of Nevada executive director Athar Haseebullah said:

"The panel decision recently issued by the Nevada Supreme Court in this matter should be fully reviewed by the Nevada Supreme Court because the decision issued by the panel of justices provides government agencies a blueprint for secrecy, and that’s dangerous. If the current decision stands, a law enforcement agency in Nevada could bury misconduct by simply adding records related to the misconduct to an ‘investigative file,’ take no punitive action against the officers involved, and then lock the public out of this process, avoiding all layers of accountability. When a student is thrown to the ground by a school police officer, and the agency claims everything was handled appropriately, the public should not be forced to trust the government agency involved in that misconduct, especially as the public’s dollars are spent to pay out big financial settlements on the back end of this misconduct. If confidentiality is an issue, redaction of items containing confidential information is a proper method to address the issue, not withholding the release of all contents within an investigative file. Under the existing decision, the public wouldn’t even be able to assess the number of pages within an investigative file to ensure an investigation even occurred. That’s preposterous. We are asking the full Nevada Supreme Court to step in and review this decision.”