Sparks and Reno police sued after denying victim access to records 

A woman pulled over by a Reno police officer on New Year’s Eve is now suing both the Reno Police Department and Sparks Police after both refused to turn over public records to the woman’s attorney. According to a lawsuit filed on Oct. 21, the RPD officer took her cell phone for about 10 minutes after she provided proof of insurance.

“On Sept. 4, 2024, two detectives from the Sparks Police Department visited [the woman] at her parents’ home. During this visit, the detectives showed [her] multiple personal and intimate videos and images stored on her personal phone that appeared to have been photographed from another device and asked about the traffic stop on New Year’s Eve,” the lawsuit states.

“[She] never sent these images and videos to the Reno police officer, leading her to believe that the officer may have accessed and copied these images from her phone without her knowledge or consent during the New Year’s Eve 2023 traffic stop.”

“During the investigation, potential criminal misconduct was identified.”

The woman’s attorney, Luke Busby, requested records in the case from both Reno and Sparks, and both cities denied his requests. Busby, who represents This Is Reno in public records cases, would not comment on this case. No further details on the case were provided in court filings.

Officer no longer with RPD

Reno Police Chief Kathryn Nance would not identify the officer but said he was no longer with the department after being investigated.

“The Reno Police Department (RPD) identified what appeared to be significant officer misconduct, immediately removed the officer from duty, and initiated an internal investigation,” Nance said in an emailed statement. “During the investigation, potential criminal misconduct was identified, and the matter was referred to the Sparks Police Department for independent review and further investigation, as well as the Nevada POST Commission for professional discipline. All of these actions were inline with current RPD Policy. The officer has since separated from employment with RPD.”

RPD did not respond to whether the officer quit or was terminated. A source with knowledge of the case said criminal charges may be pending.

“RPD is deeply committed to maintaining a safe, ethical, and respectful environment for our community,” Nance added. “We strongly condemn any and all misuse of authority and hold our officers to the highest standards of ethical conduct.” 

Victim denied access to records

Sparks City Attorney Wes Duncan denied a public records request on Sept. 25, citing the ongoing investigation. Busby objected, arguing that blanket denials for open investigations are insufficient under Nevada law.

In an Oct. 15 response, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mariah Northington elaborated on the denial, citing in part the officer’s right to a fair trial. Northington also cited the need to protect witness identities and privacy interests.

“Given the nature of the allegations—of which you are aware, given who your client is—there is a risk of embarrassment, shame, stigma, and harassment for every individual involved in this case,” she wrote.

Northington also invoked Marsy’s Law, a victims’ rights amendment to the Nevada Constitution. She said that while the woman is a known alleged victim, “there is the possibility of the identification of further alleged victims.”

Busby disagreed.

“The city’s denial does not address the obvious fact that [the woman], the requester of the records, is the victim of any crime that may have been committed under the circumstances,” he said, adding that under Nevada law, even if parts of the records contain confidential information, the records as a whole should not be classified as confidential if redactions can preserve confidentiality.

“Simply declaring all open investigations confidential, without conducting an individualized assessment, ignores established precedent interpreting the NPRA,” Busby wrote.

The Nevada Supreme Court has recognized exceptions for open law enforcement investigations under certain circumstances, as noted in the 1990 Donrey v. Bradshaw decision and confirmed in other public records cases.

“the interest in maintaining confidentiality until the criminal matter and personnel investigation has been resolved clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Reno’s Deputy City Attorney Mark Dunagan, however, says the city won’t provide information to the public about any open investigation. 

“The city … denies your request for records in its possession pertaining to this ongoing investigation being conducted by SPD for possible criminal charges and potential criminal proceedings because the balancing of the accused’s right to an inviolate, fair, and impartial trial categorically outweighs the public’s right to access the requested documents under the NPRA,” a city attorney wrote when denying Busby’s records request. “While no statutory provision expressly deems the records confidential by law, Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw … directs that ‘a balancing of the interests involved is necessary…’”

The Reno city attorney also chastised Busby for requesting the records, noting that the city could err on the side of transparency and avoid paying attorney fees if unsuccessful in defending against public records lawsuits.

“This places the city in an untenable situation,” the attorney added. “Public money spent fighting the NPRA request is money not spent on other municipal services, e.g., public safety, sanitation, and infrastructure improvements. In truth, the award of attorney’s fees and costs operates as a financial incentive for the city to err on the side of disclosing the records, thereby impairing the accused’s right to a fair trial.

“In this situation,” the attorney added, “given the potential impact the release of the records would have on SPD’s ongoing investigation into possible criminal charges; the right of the accused to obtain a fair trial; the integrity of testimony of potential witnesses; and the privacy interests of any victims or of the witnesses, the interest in maintaining confidentiality until the criminal matter and personnel investigation has been resolved clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Judge Connie Steinheimer ordered both cities to either produce the records or appear at a November court hearing to explain why they should not be produced. After that order, Dunagan filed a “peremptory challenge” to prevent Steinheimer from hearing the case. Judge Barry Breslow is now the judge.

If you have information about this case, please get in touch.