Hernandez v. Bennett–Haron

CourtSupreme Court of Nevada
Citation128 Nev. Adv. Op. 54,287 P.3d 305
Docket NumberNo. 59861.,59861.
PartiesJorge HERNANDEZ, an individual; Brittany Burtner, an individual; Kevin McNeal, an individual; Heather Neely, an individual; and Scott Simon, an Individual, Appellants, v. The Honorable Karen P. BENNETT–HARON, in her official capacity as Chief Judge of Las Vegas Township Justice Court in and for CLARK COUNTY, Nevada; P. Michael Murphy, in his official capacities as Coroner and Deputy Public Administrator of Clark County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; and Christopher Laurent, in his official capacity as Chief Deputy District Attorney in the Office of District Attorney for Clark County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada, Respondents.
Decision Date25 October 2012

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Reisman Sorokac and Joshua H. Reisman, Anthony Stirling, and Robert R. Warns, III, Las Vegas, for Appellants.

Garcia–Mendoza & Snavely, Chtd., and Eva Garcia–Mendoza and Luther M. Snavely, III, Las Vegas, for Respondents.

Allen Lichtenstein and Katrina M. Rogers, Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this opinion, we address the constitutionality of the Clark County Code of Ordinance provisions that establish coroner's inquests into an officer-involved death. Appellants, five Nevada Highway Patrol Officers, contend that the inquest procedures and provisions violate their due process rights under the Nevada Constitution and that, by requiring justices of the peace to preside over the inquest process, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners unconstitutionally impinged on the Legislature's authority to establish the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. Although we conclude that appellants' due process arguments fail, we determine that the code provision requiring that a justice of the peace serve as presiding officer in coroner's inquest proceedings regarding officer-involved deaths intrudes on the Legislature's exclusive authority over the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. Because the code makes no provision for anyone other than a justice of the peace to serve as presiding officer in such proceedings, we conclude that the offending provision cannot be severed, which requires the entire inquest scheme regarding officer-involved deaths to be struck down.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying coroner's inquest proceeding was prompted after appellants, Nevada Highway Patrol Officers, responded to an incident that resulted in a man's death. Before the inquest proceedings against appellants commenced, the Clark County Board of Commissioners amended the coroner's inquest ordinance. After appellants were notified that a coroner's inquest had been initiated, appellants filed separate complaints in the district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the validity of the amended ordinance based on asserted constitutional violations. The complaints were later consolidated.

According to the district court docket entries, appellants filed a motion and application for both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, which Clark County respondents opposed.1 The day before the scheduled pre-inquest conference was to begin, the district court held a hearing on appellants' application for a temporary restraining order. The district court subsequently entered an order granting the request for a temporary restraining order, which prohibited the respondents from going forward with the inquest proceeding until the court ruled on the application for a preliminary injunction.

Thereafter, the district court entered a written judgment rejecting the majority of appellants' claims and upholding all but one of the Clark County code sections pertaining to inquest proceedings related to officer-involved deaths. The judgment also dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied injunctive relief. These appeals followed. This court subsequently granted, over respondents'opposition, appellants' emergency motion to stay the subject inquest proceedings and directed expedited briefing. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada was granted permission to file an amicus curiae brief in this matter and to participate in oral argument, which was held before the en banc court in Las Vegas.

CORONER'S INQUEST

The legal questions presented on appeal concern the validity of the Clark County coroner's inquest procedures for officer-involved deaths as amended by the Board of Commissioners, and thus, we begin by examining the relevant code sections before considering the parties' arguments.

The board of county commissioners for any county in this state is authorized by statute, NRS 244.163, to create a county coroner's office.2 Currently, Clark and Washoe Counties are the only counties in the state to have coroner's offices. Clark County established its coroner's office and set forth the coroner's duties and the procedures for coroner's inquests by enacting the Clark County, Nevada, Code of Ordinances (CCCO), Title 2, Chapter 2.12. Under the procedures set forth in this chapter, when an officer-involved death occurs, the coroner calls an inquest and a presiding officer is selected. CCCO § 2.12.080(c). An officer-involved death occurs when an officer, while acting in his or her official capacity, uses force that may contribute to the death of a person or the officer actively takes some role in causing a vehicular accident that leads to a person's death. CCCO § 2.12.010(p). An inquest is conducted when “circumstances support reasonable grounds to suspect” that a death was unnatural. CCCO § 2.12.010(c). As regards the presiding officer, “the chief judge from the township where the death occurred shall appoint a qualified magistrate, as defined in section 2.12.010(1), to sit as the presiding officer in the inquest.” CCCO § 2.12.020(e). A [q]ualified magistrate” is defined as “a justice of the peace from any jurisdiction within Clark County who is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state of Nevada.” CCCO § 2.12.010(1). “The presiding officer shall preside over the inquest and shall insure that the inquest is conducted as an investigatory and fact finding proceeding and not an adversarial proceeding.” CCCO § 2.12.080(m).

Before the inquest, the coroner provides the presiding officer with a written overview of the case. CCCO § 2.12.080(f). Additionally, the presiding officer and the coroner compile copies of all records, exhibits, or other evidence that they determine to be relevant to the matter under investigation. CCCO § 2.12.080(i). The county prosecutor also assists the presiding officer with preparing for the inquest and works at the direction of the presiding officer, though in this role, the prosecutor serves as a neutral presenter of facts and not as an advocate for any interested parties. CCCO § 2.12.080(g). The presiding officer may appoint an inquest ombudsperson, who is a licensed lawyer in Nevada, to represent the deceased's family throughout the proceeding. CCCO § 2.12.010(r); CCCO § 2.12.075(a).

Another integral part of the proceeding is an inquest panel, which begins with 15 individuals who are selected by the Clark County jury commissioner. CCCO § 2.12.080(1). From this group, the presiding officer selects at random 7 persons to sit as the inquest panel. CCCO § 2.12.080(m). The presiding officer examines each person for bias, prejudice, or any other good and sufficient reason for dismissal and takes reasonable efforts to ensure that the panel is as diverse and representative of the community as possible. CCCO § 2.12.080(m)(1).

At the start of the inquest proceedings, the presiding officer makes an opening statement indicating that the inquest is not adversarial but is a fact-finding proceeding. CCCO § 2.12.080(m)(2). The presiding officer provides instruction to the inquest panel regarding their conduct outside the proceeding, CCCO § 2.12.080(m)(6), and prepares interrogatories that the inquest panel will answer regarding questions of fact. CCCO § 2.12.080(m)(7); CCCO § 2.12.100. The findings made pursuant to interrogatories do not bind the prosecutor's office or preclude any future civil or criminal proceedings. CCCO § 2.12.140. It is under these procedures that the coroner's inquest in question is to be conducted.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, appellants primarily argue that their due process rights under the Nevada Constitution will be violated if they are forced to participate in the coroner's inquest process under the procedures set forth in the Clark County, Nevada, Code of Ordinances for inquests involving officer-involved deaths. Appellants further contend that by designating justices of the peace to perform the duties of presiding officer in the coroner's inquest process, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners intruded upon the Nevada Constitution's express delegation of authority to the Legislature to establish the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. We address these arguments in turn.3

Standard of review

In the absence of any factual dispute, this court reviews a district court's decision to grant or deny declaratory and injunctive relief de novo. Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 942, 142 P.3d 339, 347 (2006); see also Secretary of State v. Give Nevada A Raise, 120 Nev. 481, 486 n. 8, 96 P.3d 732, 735 n. 8 (2004). In addition, this court reviews de novo determinations of whether a statute is constitutional. Flamingo Paradise Gaming v. Att'y General, 125 Nev. 502, 509, 217 P.3d 546, 551 (2009).

The Clark County coroner's inquest proceeding does not infringe upon due process guarantees

Under Nevada's due process clause, [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8(5). Although appellants do not challenge the constitutionality of the Clark County code under the federal constitution, the similarities between the due process clauses...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • April 9, 2020
    ...the court "must satisfy the procedural requirements for a valid detention order"); Hernandez v. Bennett-Haron, 128 Nev. 580, 587, 287 P.3d 305, 310 (2012) (stating that this court looks to federal precedent for guidance in determining what procedures satisfy due process). First, as we state......
  • Bd. of Trs. of the Glazing Health & Welfare Trust v. Chambers, Case No. 2:15-CV-01754-KJD-VCF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 10, 2016
    ...Nev. 1050, 843 P.2d 369, 373 (1992) ; Dunphy v. Sheehan, 92 Nev. 259, 549 P.2d 332, 337 (1976) ; but see, Hernandez v. Bennett – Haron, 287 P.3d 305, 317 (2012) (inclusion of severability clause in County ordinance meant that County Commissioners intended for remainder of sections amended t......
  • Schwartz v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • September 29, 2016
    ...of SB 302, which is purely a legal question reviewed de novo by this court. See Hernandez v. Bennett–Haron , 128 Nev. 580, 586, 287 P.3d 305, 310 (2012) (“[T]his court reviews de novo determinations of whether a statute is constitutional.”). Thus, our review in these cases is de novo, and w......
  • Jones v. Nev. Comm'n On Judicial Discipline, 61902.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • February 27, 2014
    ...due process rights generally are not implicated during purely investigatory proceedings. Hernandez v. Bennett–Haron, 128 Nev. ––––, ––––, 287 P.3d 305, 310–11 (2012) (citing Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 442, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960)). In Hernandez, highway patrol officers cha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT