LAS VEGAS (CN) — A Nevada judge has ruled that a police union lawsuit over the Las Vegas Review-Journal's refusal to remove or obscure a video of correction officers violating policy while on duty can go ahead.
“The ball is in their court now,” William Schuller, attorney for the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, told Courthouse News on Friday.
The police union claims the newspaper's publication of the video violates a state law prohibiting the public release of photos of police officers. The city of Henderson joined the lawsuit, but after a judge said the paper did not have to remove or change the videos, the city agreed to pay $20,000 in legal fees to the newspaper.
The newspaper then filed an motion to dismiss on anti-SLAPP grounds, arguing the union's lawsuit was an effort to thwart public communication on a matter of public interest. Clark County judge Mark Denton denied the motion.
“They need to decide whether they're going to file a writ on Judge Stanton's decision yesterday," Schuller said of the newspaper, "or they can also move to dismiss on standing grounds. If they choose to do neither, then we need to get a scheduling order in place and get a trial deadline, which would essentially be Judge Denton ruling on whose interpretation of the statute is correct.”
Benjamin Lipman, the newspaper's chief legal officer, said the newspaper is considering an appeal of Denton's denial. Police images and videos are private according to the law, but Lipman said the newspaper owns the videos and its right to report truthful information legally obtained through reporting is protected by the First Amendment.
Lipman said the newspaper disagreed with the ruling but that because the judge previously denied the demand to blur or remove the videos, there's no impact on the paper's reporting at this time.
Schuller says the law applies to anyone who wants to make an officer's personal information, home address, work photos or videos public.
“They've specifically said it's not public information,” Schuller said of lawmakers who passed the legislation. “Why would they enact that statute and only have it applied to a law enforcement agency? Either the information is confidential, not for public dissemination, or it's not. It can't be confidential or protected information, depending on whose hands it's in. It makes no sense."
Schuller noted the union had asked the newspaper to blur the officers’ faces but the newspaper had refused, claiming the demand violated the paper's First Amendment rights.
"Even if their faces are blurred, you know that these are the corrections officers, so blurring would have no impact whatsoever on the substance or content of the article,” Schuller said.
Schuller said he's ready for the case to proceed.
“Let's get an interpretation from a judge,” he said. “A neutral, unbiased arbiter knows what the interpretation of the statute is, so everybody knows. I don't see why the Review journal is being so resistant at this point in the game.”
Follow @MarkHebert100
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
First Amendment action filed against Texas court clerks April 26, 2024 -
Texas free speech April 26, 2024