Case Title: Conrad v. Reno Police Dep't

Citation: 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 14

Docket Number: 84389

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 2023-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
490 Now, Advance opinion |H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ROBERT A. CONRAD, AN No. 84389

INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A |
‘THISISRENO.COM, om
FILED

 

Appellant,
RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT, A = JUN 15 2
GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION OF | n

‘THE CITY OF RENO, | : a
Respondent. | OY fear Der

 

Appeal from a district court order granting in part and denying
in part a petition for a writ of mandamus in a public records dispute. Second
Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen M. Drakulich, Judge.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Luke A. Busby, Reno,
for Appellant.

Karl 8. Hall, City Attorney, and Robert F. Bony and Mark W. Dunagan,
Deputy City Attorneys, Reno,
for Respondent.

 

   

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.

V3-189SO

 
OPINION
By the Court, BELL, J.

Appellant Dr. Robert Conrad owns and operates
ThisIsReno.com, an online news website. In 2021, Conrad filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA),
challenging the failure of the Reno Police Department (RPD) to disclose
certain records. At issue here, RPD refused to disclose an investigative
report to Conrad, and RPD redacted officers’ faces before disclosing body:
worn camera footage. The district court denied Conrad's petition with
regard to both issues. Conrad appeals that decision, arguing that the
district court erred in finding that the investigative report and the officers’
faces as they appeared in RPD's body-worn camera footage were
confidential. We reverse in part, regarding the investigative report, and
remand for the district court to conduct a more individualized
determination based on the content of the full report, either through in
camera review or by other means deemed appropriate by the district court
judge. We affirm the district court's decision regarding the redactions to
the body-worn camera footage.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

‘ThislsReno.com serves as “a community-focused online news
source for the greater Reno, Nevada{,] area” according to Dr. Robert Conrad,
who owns’and operates the website. In that capacity, Conrad made a
number of public records requests to the Reno Police Department in 2020.
‘The requests at issue on appeal involve the investigation of a Washoe
County Sheriffs Office sergeant and the sweep of a homeless encampment
by RPD. In response to Conrad's requests, RPD refused to disclose the

investigative report regarding the sergeant. RPD did provide body-worn

 

 
©

 

camera footage of the sweep of the homeless encampment, but it redacted
the faces of the officers.
The investigative report

RPD began investigating former Sergeant Dennis Carry in
2018, after the sergeant's wife reached out to the Washoe County Sheriffs
Office expressing concerns about Carry’s erratic behavior. The
investigation ultimately led to Carry’s arrest in 2021. At that time,
Detective Sergeant Trenton Johnson of RPD completed a declaration in
support of Carry’s arrest, which was filed in the Reno Justice Court.

Johnson's declaration contained information derived from the full

 

investigative report.

In 2020, prior to Carry’s arrest, Conrad filed a public records
request with RPD for the full investigative report on Carry. RPD refused
to disclose the report because Carry was still under investigation. In its
response to Conrad, RPD cited Danrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 106
Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144 (1990). After Carry’s arrest, RPD continued to deny
Conrad's subsequent requests. In doing so, RPD restated its initial
reasoning and added that disclosure of the entire investigative report would
compromise Carry’s right to receive a fair trial, reveal RPD’s confidential
investigative techniques, and disclose the identity of witnesses. In each
correspondence RPD sent to Conrad refusing to disclose the report, RPD
cited Bradshaw and other cases from this court.
The body-worn camera footage

On June 3, 2020, RPD conducted a sweep of a homeless
encampment under a Reno highway overpass. Conrad arrived at the scene
to report after receiving a tip that RPD Officer Ryan Gott would be at the
sweep. Conrad believed that Officer Gott previously posted denigrating
comments online about an advocate for homeless rights. RPD reportedly

 
 

refused to allow Conrad access into the encampment. The next day, Conrad
submitted a public records request to RPD for Officer Gott’s body-worn
camera footage.

In response to the request, RPD provided Conrad with a
compact dise containing the body-worn camera footage taken by Officer Gott
at the sweep. The footage provided shows the faces of homeless individuals
and the name badge of at least one officer; however, the faces of the officers
were blurred out.

Petition for writ of mandamus

In 2021, Conrad filed a petition for a writ of mandamus before
the district court in Washoe County. The petition sought disclosure of
various materials under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA), including
the Carry report and the unredacted Gott video. Conrad claimed that RPD
had both improperly denied and failed to timely respond to Conrad's public
records requests. The district court granted part of Conrad's petition with
regard to certain NPRA violations not at issue here, but it denied Conrad's,
petition as to the Carry report and the unredacted Gott video.

With regard to the Carry report, RPD asserted that the
investigative report was confidential under Bradshaw. RPD also provided
an affidavit from Sergeant Johnson. Sergeant Johnson attested that the
full investigative file contained more information than he had included in
the declaration to the Reno Justice Court. According to him, the full
investigative report contained, but was “not limited to, relevant emails,
reports, documents, witness statements, interviews of witnesses and other
involved parties.” Sergeant Johnson opined that release of this information
to the public during Carry’s ongoing prosecution could impede the
remainder of the investigation, increase the likelihood of prejudicing a jury,

taint the original testimony of certain witnesses, and stymie potential

  

 
efforts by Carry’s defense counsel to suppress any evidence contained
within the investigative file. Sergeant Johnson's one-and-one-half-page
affidavit provided no specific detail and no information regarding why
redaction would be ineffective.

After a hearing, the district court denied Conrad's petition with
respect to the disclosure of the full investigative report. The district court
found that the Bradshaw balancing test favored nondisclosure of the Carry
investigative report because (1) the criminal proceeding against Carry was
ongoing, implicating Carry's ability to receive a fair trial; (2) the report
contained confidential sources; and (3) the report contained investigative
techniques. The district court based these findings on Sergeant Johnson's
affidavit. The district court did not review the investigative report in
camera or take other evidence regarding the content of the report, even
though counsel for RPD suggested during the hearing that in camera review
might be appropriate.

With regard to the Gott body-worn camera video, RPD argued
that the officers’ faces as they appear in body-worn camera footage were
confidential under NRS 289.025(1) as photographs in the possession of a

law enforcement agency. RPD also claimed a nontrivial privacy interest in

 

“avoiding public disparagement, ridicule, and harassment” that outweighed
the public’s interest in disclosure of the full body-worn camera footage.

‘The district court denied Conrad’s request for the unredacted
video footage. ‘The court found that while body-worn camera footage
constitutes a public record under NRS 289.830(2), an officer's photograph is
confidential under NRS 289.025(1). The district court applied this
protection to the faces of officers in the body-worn camera footage, reasoning

that

 

 
om Be

 

{pletitioner provided this Court with 49 pages of
screen grabs from BWC [body-worn camera
footage] (exhibits 4-7)....The result of these
sereengrabs are clearly photos of an officer that
would be subject to protection under NRS
289,025(1).... (T]hat an officer shall not receive
the protection of NRS 289.025(1) for BWC but
would be able to receive such protections once a
screengrab was made would produce illogical
results.

The district court also reasoned that “a video is merely a
compilation of photos” and is therefore subject to the confidentiality
provisions that certain photographs receive under NRS 289.025(1).

DISCUSSION

‘The Nevada Public Records Act, codified as NRS Chapter 239,
governs public access to government records. Under the NPRA, “unless
otherwise declared by law to be confidential, all public books and public
records of a governmental entity must be open at all times during office
hours to inspection by any person.” NRS 239.010(1). “The purpose of this
chapter is to foster democratic principles...” NRS 239.001(1).
Consequently, “{t]he provisions of this chapter must be construed liberally
to carry out this important purpose.” NRS 239,001(2). Further, “[alny
exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts
access to public books and records by members of the public must be
construed narrowly.” NRS 239.001(3).

If a governmental entity wishes to prevent the disclosure of a
record in the entity's custody, the NPRA charges the entity with the “burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the public book or record,
or a part thereof, is confidential.” NRS 239.0132). As this court has

explained,

 
{ulnder the NPRA, government-generated records
are presumptively open to public inspection. This
presumption may be rebutted either by an explicit
statutory provision making a particular type of,
record confidential or, . .. by a “broad balancing of
the interests involved,” where the government
must prove that “its interest in nondisclosure
clearly outweighs the public's interest in access.”

Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 136 Nev. 733,
785, 478 P.3d 383, 386 (2020) (quoting Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons,
127 Nev. 873, 880, 266 P.3d 623, 628 (2011)) (internal citations omitted),

The district court abused its discretion by denying Conrad's petition with
respect to the Carry investigative report without individualized findings
regarding the redacted material

We consider here whether the district court properly denied
disclosure of the investigative report under the balancing of interests tests.
Generally, “[wle review a district court’s order denying a petition for a writ
of mandamus for an abuse of discretion.” Republican Att'ys Gen. Ass'n v.
Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't (RAGA), 136 Nev. 28, 30, 458 P.3d 328, 331
(2020). Further, specifically, when a district court conducts a balancing of
interests to determine whether limitations on disclosure should apply to
materials requested under the NPRA, “we review [that] portion of the order
for an abuse of discretion.” Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Las Vegas Review-
Journal, 134 Nev. 700, 704-05, 429 P.3d 313, 318 (2018).

In RAGA, this court determined that the district court abused
its discretion in denying a petition made under the NPRA because it had
failed to “conduct an individualized exercise of discretion” regarding
each requested record. 136 Nev. at 37, 458 P.3d at 3

  

6 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Specifically, the district court in that case abused
its discretion because it had failed to view every record at issue “or

make any specific findings as to whether these records contain[ed)

 

 
on

 

confidential... information.” Id. RAGA requires district courts to consider
each record on an individual basis and make findings regarding claims of
confidentiality. Id. at 37, 458 P.3d at 835, RAGA did not create a bright-
line rule mandating in camera review of records in every NPRA dispute, nor
do we here. Under the circumstances at hand, however, the district court
had insufficient information to properly balance the concerns.

Additionally, the burden of proving that a record is confidential
lies with the govertmental entity arguing against disclosure. NRS
239,0113(2). The government may not avoid a lawful public records request
by simply: providing a blanket statement of factors. See generally
Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144 (concluding that a balancing test
must be used to determine whether public policy considerations outweigh
privacy and/or security concerns). A substantial body of caselaw has been
developed since Bradshaw concerning the balancing test that courts must
conduct during petitions regarding NPRA requests. Gibbons, 127 Nev. at
878-79, 266 P.3d at 626-27 (providing an overview of NPRA jurisprudence).
And we recently held in Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc. v. Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 8, 526 P.3d 724, 735-36
(2023), that the 2007 amendments to the NPRA require courts to apply the
balancing test in Bradshaw to favor the public’s interest in access over the
governmental entity’s interest in nondisclosure when weighing the
respective interests.

 
Placing the burden on the entity is a logical requirement.
Often, as here, the entity arguing against disclosure has exclusive custody
over the records it seeks to withhold, thus limiting the other party's ability
to dispute any conclusions regarding the contents of the documents.
Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 882, 266 P.3d at 629 (explaining that the burden of
proof under the NPRA is on the government entity).

Before the district court, RPD provided only Sergeant Johnson's
affidavit as evidence. The affidavit does little more than assert conclusions
about the effect of disclosing the full investigative report. These generalized
assertions do not explain why the records are confidential or why the
records could not be redacted.

‘The district court here did not err in relying on Bradshaw, but
the district court abused its discretion in determining that the balancing
test weighed in favor of RPD without making sufficiently specific findings
regarding the material in question.

The district court correctly denied Conrad's petition with respect to the body:
worn camera footage
‘The next issue before us is whether law enforcement agencies

may redact images of officer faces from body-worn camera recordings. This
court reviews issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Young v. Nev.
Gaming Control Bd., 136 Nev. 584, 586, 473 P.3d 1034, 1036 (2020). “When
reviewing de novo, {this court] will interpret a statute or regulation by its
plain meaning unless the statute or regulation is ambiguous, the plain
meaning would provide an absurd result, or the interpretation clearly was
not intended.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

‘The language of the two statutory provisions involved here is

unambiguous. NRS 289.830(1) requires peace officers “who routinely

 

 
om

 

interact with the public to wear a portable event recording device while on
duty.” The statute further provides that

[alny record made by a portable event recording
device pursuant to this section is a public record
which may be:

(a) Requested only on a per incident basis;
and

(b) Available for inspection only at the
location where the record is held if the record
contains confidential information that may not
otherwise be redacted.

NRS 289.830(2). At the same time, NRS 289.026(1) provides that “the home
address and any photograph of a peace officer in the possession of a law
enforcement agency are not public information and are confidential.”

Any record produced from body-worn camera footage is subject
to both the NPRA and any confidentiality provisions limiting public
disclosure. RAGA, 136 Nev. at 34, 458 P.3d at 333 (clarifying that “as a
public record, bodycam footage is subject to the NPRA. The NPRA,
however, expressly yields to confidentiality provisions.”); see also NRS
239.010(1) (clarifying that the NPRA makes records public “unless
otherwise declared by law to be confidential”). Reading the term
‘photograph’ in context supports the conclusion that an officer's face as it
appears in body-worn camera footage is confidential under NRS 289.026(1).
See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fackett, 125 Nev. 132, 138, 206 P.3d 572, 576 (2009)
(explaining that the court “read{s) statutes within a statutory scheme
harmoniously with one another”). NRS 289.025(1) protects photographs of
officers and their home addresses from disclosure. The common element
between these two records is not a technical one; they are both forms of

personal identification.

10

 
Further, NRS 289,025(1)'s provision making photographs of a
peace officer in the possession of law enforcement confidential is more
specific than NRS 289.830(2)'s provision making “[aJny record” open to
public inspection. Therefore, NRS 289.025(1) governs. See Szydel v.
Markman, 121 Nev. 453, 457, 117 P.3d 200, 202-03 (2005) (‘When two
statutes are clear and unambiguous but conflict with each other when
applied to a specific factual situation ...we will attempt to read the
statutory provisions in harmony, provided that this interpretation does not.
violate legislative intent.”).

‘The plain language of the two statutes does not conflict and in
fact creates a harmonious scheme in which records derived from body-worn
camera footage are public records subject to other statutory confidentiality
provisions. See Clark Cty. Office of Coroner/Medical Examiner v. Las Vegas
Review-Journal, 136 Nev. 44, 48, 458 P.3d 1048, 1052 (2020) (explaining
that “this court will interpret a rule or statute in harmony with other rules
or statutes”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude the district court did not err in interpreting NRS
289,025(1) as limiting NRS 289.830(2). RPD appropriately redacted body
camera footage to protect the confidential nature of the information
pursuant to statute.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the district court's order insofar as it found that the
Carry investigative report is confidential under Bradshaw and remand for
the court to conduct an individualized determination based on the content

of the full report, either through in camera review or by other means

deemed appropriate by the district court judge. We affirm the district

 

 
court's order to the extent that it found that redacting officers’ faces in body-
worn camera footage is appropriate and denied relief related thereto, as the
images are confidential under NRS 289.025(1),

hor

 

Bell

p3jC Cu.

Prt -
Pickering

 

;

Parraguirre