LAS VEGAS – Eighth Judicial District Court Mark Denton yesterday denied a motion by a police union that sought to force the Las Vegas Review-Journal to redact correctional officer faces in a video the news outlet published.
The newspaper published an investigative report that found taxpayers have been on the hook for millions of dollars in overtime in an understaffed detention facility. Officers were found to have also violated policies. The RJ published jail video obtained from a source. The Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers sued the paper, demanding the RJ redact officer faces.
The police union attempted to argue a state law prohibits law enforcement agencies from releasing images of officers without the officers’ consent. The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed that law also applies to bodyworn cameras in a lawsuit filed by This Is Reno against the Reno Police Department.
The union’s attorney said continued publication of the video put the officers at risk. He also complained that the RJ kept publishing the video after each court hearing in the case.
“The confidentiality of the officers’ private information was breached,” attorney William Schuller said. “The legislature made a determination that this information is not public.”
City of Henderson attorney Wade Gochnour further alleged the RJ was violating the Nevada Peach Officers Bill of Rights by publishing the video. The RJ, in response, argued the Nevada Peace Officers Bill of Rights cannot be applied to a news outlet, and the publication of information received from a source is not subject to government approval or modification.
“The prohibition on publication of information until there is a final judgment is a prior restraint,” RJ Matthew Cate said, citing the Pentagon Papers case, which saw the publication of information that had national security implications. “These officers’ identities are not confidential. This statute is about the disclosure of their images in the context of the Peace Officers Bill of Rights … and this alleged violation is not anywhere near the circumstances that were at issue in the Pentagon Papers case, which did not justify prior restraint.
“This statute … only applies to employers,” Cate added.
Denton agreed and ruled against the union.
“I’m not persuaded that injunctive relief is warranted, and accordingly, I’m going to deny the motion for preliminary injunction,” he said.
The RJ called the decision a win.
“Today’s ruling was affirmation that press freedoms are enshrined in the First Amendment for an important reason: The government and public employees can’t tell the media what to publish and not publish,” Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook said.
The RJ reported the union may appeal the decision.
