13 Investigates

Actions

Nevada Supreme Court rules police can't hide names, badge numbers in misconduct cases

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that police officers accused of misconduct cannot keep their names and badge numbers confidential, ending a years-long legal battle.
Nevada Supreme Court rules police can't hide names, badge numbers in misconduct cases
Posted
and last updated

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that police officers accused of misconduct cannot conceal their names and badge numbers from the public, ending a years-long lawsuit.

The case centered on the police union's push to keep officer disciplinary information confidential. It was initially filed on behalf of seven officers — each accused of misconduct ranging from excessive force, to misidentifying someone as a suspect, to failing to investigate a hotel room burglary.

WATCH | Darcy Spears has the latest

Nevada Supreme Court rules police can't hide names, badge numbers in misconduct cases

The union sued the LVMPD Citizen Review Board and the department itself in a bid to keep accused officers' names and badge numbers from being disclosed in board meeting notices, agendas, and findings and recommendations.

The Citizen Review Board is an independent oversight agency. Its role is to review internal affairs investigations and public complaints against police officers.

The union claimed officer privacy rights outweigh any public interest in disclosure of the names and badge numbers, and that making the information public threatens officer safety.

A district court rejected that argument, so the union appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court — and lost. Justices found that officer names and badge numbers are not confidential, so the privacy claim does not hold up.

In its ruling, the court pointed out that state law "requires a public body to include on its meeting agenda 'the name of the person whose character, alleged misconduct, or professional competence will be considered.'"

The union had argued that disclosure "could expose officers to threats, harassment, or embarrassment where allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded or unsubstantiated, especially in high-profile cases."

The Supreme Court noted, however, that "names and badge numbers are already public and identified by the individuals who file complaints of officer misconduct."

The high court also noted that Metro's own policy requires officers to identify themselves by name and badge number when interacting with the public, and the department itself has disclosed that information in response to public records requests.

Sheriff McMahill addressed the issue of accountability at a public program at the Mob Museum in July 2023.

"I'm not asking for your blind support. When we make a mistake, we'll fess up. When we mess up, we fess up, right?" McMahill said.

The union said it accepts the Supreme Court's decision and hopes to address some of the issues in the next legislative session.

Do you have a question or news tip for 13 Investigates? Reach out here!

This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.

13 Investigates - Send us a tip
Do you have a story idea or tip for 13 Investigates? Fill out the form below.
Are you willing to go on camera?
Let's talk promo image

Share your questions, concerns and story ideas with Channel 13