The Nevada nonprofit Our Nevada Judges (ONJ) is challenging Washoe County District Court Judge Kathleen Sigurdson’s decision to deny camera access to her courtroom. It is the second time in the same case that Sigurdson has denied ONJ the ability to videotape a hearing over This Is Reno’s public records lawsuit against the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
ONJ filed a petition with the Nevada Supreme Court on Monday, arguing that Sigurdson’s denial lacks the detailed reasoning required by court rules. ONJ, which Nevada courts recognize as a press organization, first requested to provide electronic coverage of the case in April. Sigurdson denied ONJ’s request with the cited reason, “Denied.” Neither the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office nor This Is Reno objected to the media coverage.
ONJ appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which in August ordered Sigurdson to provide specific reasons for her decision. Although she complied with the order, she again denied camera access. One reason cited was potential jury influence.
No jury trial is scheduled or expected to be scheduled.
Luke Busby, ONJ’s attorney who also represents This Is Reno, argued Sigurdson’s reasons aren’t specific to this case and could be used to block cameras in many court proceedings. “Judge Sigurdson’s concerns aren’t about the camera footage itself but about the information being shared,” Busby wrote.
“Sigurdson appears to have copy-pasted an abstract list of reasons as to why cameras should not be allowed in courtrooms, a clear violation of the Supreme Court’s requirement.”
This Is Reno sued the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office after it refused to provide any bodycam footage of a domestic violence report at former Reno City Manager Doug Thornley’s house. The sheriff’s office only provided a heavily redacted police report and City of Reno staff deleted the 911 call from Thornley’s house. Both refused to provide details of what occurred.
“Judge Sigurdson’s concerns are not related to the visual and audio footage recorded by the camera but rather the information itself,” Busby added.
ONJ is asking the Supreme Court to order Sigurdson to reverse her decision and allow camera access. However, Sigurdson determined the case does not warrant a hearing and will decide whether the sheriff’s office violated the Nevada Public Records Act based solely on filings made in the case.
ONJ said the court should still consider the case due to its importance and the likelihood of similar situations arising in the future.
“Judge Sigurdson appears to have copy-pasted an abstract list of reasons as to why cameras should not be allowed in courtrooms, a clear violation of the Supreme Court’s requirement that electronic coverage is presumed absent particularized findings,” ONJ’s Alex Falconi told This Is Reno. “I am troubled as to her citation to juries given there was no jury impaneled in this simple records request case. For this reason especially, I have no confidence in this judge’s ability to interpret and apply the rules objectively and in good faith.”
ONJ had a landmark decision at the Nevada Supreme Court in February when the court determined family law court proceedings are presumed to be public hearings.
“Open courts and a right to transparency during court proceedings are critical for our community’s ability to hold our elected judges and court systems accountable,” said Chris Peterson, an attorney with the ACLU of Nevada.
Falconi said he still has to battle for access to courtrooms despite the ruling.
“This recurring issue underscores the need for clarity to prevent improper denial of camera access,” Busby wrote. “Failure to address this issue now will likely result in continued arbitrary denials of camera access undermining the principles of open justice and public scrutiny of court proceedings.”
