Title: Republican Attorneys General Ass'n v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

136 Nev., Advance Opinion 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL No. 77511
ASSOCIATION,

fern "FILED

vs.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Fep 20 aus
Respondent. mpvaenyn me

 

Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ
of mandamus seeking the disclosure of bodycam footage and related records
under the Nevada Public Records Act. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County; Kerry Louise Earley, Judge.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Fox Rothschild LLP and Colleen E. McCarty and Deanna L. Forbush, Las
Vegas,
for Appellant.

Marquis Aurbach Coffing and Jacqueline V. Nichols and Nicholas D.

Crosby, Las Vegas,
for Respondent.

BEFORE HARDESTY, STIGLICH and SILVER, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, STIGLICH, J.:
Although the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA) generally
requires the

 

isclosure of public records, it explicitly yields to the statute

20-0042

 
barring the release of confidential juvenile justice information. In this
appeal, we consider whether the district court erred in denying appellant
Republican Attorneys General Association’s (RAGA) petition for a writ of
mandamus under the NPRA seeking bodycam footage and other related
records regarding juveniles and then-State Senator Aaron Ford's
interaction with the police due to the confidentiality of juvenile justice
records. Because respondent Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
(LVMPD) did not waive its assertion of confidentiality and the district court
did not err in finding that all portions of the bodycam footage contain
Juvenile justice information, we affirm the district court order as to the
bodycam footage. However, because the district court did not sufficiently
assess whether the other requested records contain any nonconfidential
material, we reverse the district court order as to the other records and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND

LVMPD officers responded to an incident at a property in Las
Vegas and arrested numerous juvenile suspects. As a parent of one of the
suspects, Ford subsequently arrived at the scene along with other parents.

RAGA requested records from LVMPD related to the incident
involving LVMPD officers, the juveniles, and Ford in accordance with the
NPRA. LVMPD responded that it was unable to process RAGA's request
without additional information. RAGA sent LVMPD a more specific second
Tequest for bodycam footage, the police report, witness and victim
statements, computer-aided dispatch, and any other statements by officers
relating to the incident concerning the juveniles and Ford. LVMPD replied
that it was unable to provide any records under the NPRA because the

requested records were part of an active criminal investigation. However,

 

 
LYMPD did not provide a specific legal authority justifying its denial, as
mandated in NRS 239.0107(1\(4)2).! RAGA then sent a third, identical
request. In response, LVMPD refused to provide any records because the
investigation involved juvenile suspects and arrestees, citing NRS 62H.025
and NRS 62H.030 to justify its assertion of confidentiality. RAGA then sent
@ fourth and final request that did not mention the juveniles, but rather
asked only for records relating to or depicting Ford’s interactions with
LVMPD officers. LVMPD denied RAGA's request, citing the same authority
as in its prior response. LVMPD did not respond to any of RAGA’s requests,
within five business days, as mandated by NRS 239.0107(1).

RAGA petitioned for a writ of mandamus under the NPRA in
district court. LVMPD responded that there were six hours of bodyeam
footage related to the incident, with two hours concerning Ford. LVMPD
submitted the relevant bodycam footage concerning Ford to the district
court, along with a privilege log. The district court conducted an in camera
review of the submitted bodycam footage.

‘The district court subsequently denied RAGA’s petition. It
concluded that LVMPD's failure to timely respond to RAGA’s requests did
not result in it waiving its assertion of confidentiality. It also found that
the bodycam footage, including the portions containing Ford, directly
relates to the investigation of a juvenile-involved incident because the

footage depicts the area where the incident occurred, the arrest of juveniles,

Hin the 2019 Legislative Session, the Nevada Legislature amended
the NPRA with the passage of S.B. 287. S.B. 287, 80th Leg. (Nev. 2019).
Because 8.B. 287’s “amendatory provisions . .. apply to all actions filed on
or after October 1, 2019” and this action was filed before October 1, 2019,
we apply the version of the NPRA in effect at the time the instant action
was initiated, not the 2019 amendments. 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 612, § 11, at
4008.

 

 

 
 

9

 

and discussions regarding the charges. Moreover, it noted that all
communications at the scene, including those involving Ford, directly relate
to the juvenile incident and the juvenile justice process, and that the
appearance of adults does not remove the records from the protection
granted to juvenile justice information. The district court accordingly
concluded that the bodycam footage is protected under NRS 62H.025, the
statute governing juvenile justice information’s confidentiality.
Additionally, the district court concluded that records falling under NRS
62H.025 may only be released after a juvenile justice agency is provided
with notice under NRS 62H.025(2\r), but found that the record is devoid of
RAGA providing such notice. The district court made no specific findings
‘as to the other records that RAGA requested, but denied RAGA’s petition in
its entirety. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION

This court has not previously addressed the interplay between
the confidentiality afforded to juvenile justice records and the fact that
bodycam footage is generally considered a public record subject to disclosure
under the NPRA. In addressing this, we must determine whether LVMPD
waived its assertion of confidentiality under NRS 239.0107 or NRS 239.011
when it failed to timely respond to RAGA’s requests. We also consider
whether the district court erred in finding that all portions of the bodycam
footage contain juvenile justice information under NRS 62H.025 and are
therefore excluded from NPRA disclosure. See NRS 239.010(1). Finally, we
assess whether the district court abused its discretion in denying RAGA's
Petition as to the other related records. We review a district court’s order
denying a petition for a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. City
of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58, 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003).

 
Questions of statutory construction and interpretation, however, are
questions of law reviewed de novo. Id.
LVMPD did not waive its assertion of confidentiality

RAGA argues that LVMPD waived its assertion of
confidentiality when it failed to timely respond to RAGA’s four NPRA.
requests. The district court found no legal basis for RAGA’s argument. We
agree with the district court.

‘The NPRA allows the public to access public records to foster
democratic principles such as government transparency and accountability.
NRS 239.001(1), 289.010; Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Gibbons, 127 Nev. 873,
878, 266 P.3d 623, 626 (2011). “[T]he provisions of the NPRA place an
unmistakable emphasis on disclosure.” Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 882, 266 P.3d
at 629.

The obligation to disclose, however, is not without limits. In
NRS 239.010(1), the NPRA yields to more than 400 explicitly named
statutes, many of which prohibit the disclosure of public records that
contain confidential information, including NRS 62H.025 for confidential
Juvenile justice information. See City of Sparks v. Reno Newspapers, Inc.,
133 Nev. 398, 402, 399 P.3d 352, 356 (2017) (regarding the statutes listed
in NRS 239.010(1) as specific exemptions to the NPRA). When a
governmental entity denies an NPRA request due to confidentiality, it must
Provide notice of its denial and a citation to relevant authority within five
business days. NRS 239.0107(1X@). LVMPD did not respond to any of
RAGA's requests within five business days.

RAGA argues that LVMPD waived its assertion of
confidentiality by failing to timely respond to its requests. The NPRA

articulates several remedies for noncompliance. After an unreasonable

 

 
delay or denial by a governmental entity, a requester may apply to the
district court and seek an order granting access to the record. NRS
239.011(1). The requester may also recover costs and reasonable attorney
fees upon prevailing. NRS 239.011(2). The statute does not mention waiver
as a remedy.? See NRS 239.011.

Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, this court gives
effect to the ordinary meaning of the text’s plain language without turning
toother rules of construction. In re CityCenter Constr. & Lien Master Litig.,
129 Nev. 669, 673-74, 310 P.3d 574, 578 (2013). “If a statute expressly
Provides a remedy, courts should be cautious in reading other remedies into
the statute.” Builders Ass'n of N. Nev. v. City of Reno, 105 Nev. 368, 370,
776 P.2d 1234, 1235 (1989); see also State v. Yellow Jacket Silver Mining
Co., 14 Nev. 220, 225 (1879) (“Where a statute gives a new right and
prescribes a particular remedy, such remedy must be strictly pursued, and
is exclusive of any other.”), abrogated on other grounds by Waste Mgmt. of
Nev., Ine. v. W. Taylor St., LLC, 135 Nev. 168, 443 P.3d 1115 (2019).

Waiver is not an enumerated remedy, and we decline to read it
into the statute. See, e.g., Gibbons, 127 Nev. at 885-86, 266 P.3d at 631
(remanding to the district court after a governmental entity failed to comply
with other requirements under NRS 239.0107(1Xd)). NRS 239.011

 

unambiguously provides a remedy for when a governmental entity fails to

comply with response requirements in NRS 239.0107(1}d): apply to the

 

*Bfective October 1, 2019, NRS 239.011(4) provides that the remedies
recognized in NRS 239.011 are in addition to any other remedies that may
exist in law or in equity. 2019 Stat. Nev., ch. 612, §§ 7, 11, at 4008. Also
effective October 1, 2019, NRS 239.340 imposes additional civil penalties on
governmental entities that willfully fail to comply with NPRA response
requirements. 2019 Stat. Nev., ch. 612, §§ 1, 11, at 4002, 4008.

 

 
district court and obtain costs and attorney fees upon prevailing. We do not
question that the five-business-day-response requirement is mandatory.
See Leven v. Frey, 123 Nev. 399, 407-08, 168 P.3d 712, 718 (2007) (reasoning
that statutes creating time restrictions are generally construed as
mandatory). Rather, while we understand that seeking relief from the
district court may not be the remedy RAGA prefers, we determine that it is
the specified remedy available to RAGA in this instance.

To the extent RAGA contends that waiver is an appropriate
remedy otherwise existing in equity, we adamantly disagree. Waiving
LVMPD’s assertion of confidentiality would lead to an absurd penalty
resulting in the public disclosure of Nevadans’ private information solely
because of LVMPD's failure to timely respond. See City of Reno v. Bldg. &
Constr. Trades Council of N. Nev., 127 Nev. 114, 121, 251 P.3d 718, 722
(2011) (“IT)his court will not read statutory language in a manner that
produces absurd or unreasonable results.” (quoting Carson-Tahoe Hosp. v.
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of N. Nev., 122 Nev. 218, 220, 128 P.3d 1065,
1067 (2006). We are sympathetic to RAGA’s desire for LVMPD to comply
with the five-business-day-response requirement, but we cannot imply a
remedy that would punish innocent actors such as the juveniles here by
potentially infringing on their confidentiality and exposing their private
information, Additionally, refusing to allow an assertion of confidentiality
due to LVMPD’s noncompliance with the response requirement goes far
beyond the NPRA’s emphasis on disclosure. It undermines the NPRA’s
expressly listed exceptions for confidential information.

While our analysis could end here, we find it worthy to note that

the legislative history also supports our determination. “Few principles of

statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that

 

 
Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has,
earlier discarded in favor of other language.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
USS. 421, 442-43 (1987) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar.
Corp., 446 U.S. 359, 392-93 (1980) (Stewart, J., dissenting)); see also
Russell v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24 (1983) (“Where Congress
includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior

  

to enactment, it may be presumed that the limitation was not intended.”);
Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712,
732-33, 100 P.3d 179, 194 (2004). The Legislature added NRS 239.0107 to
the NPRA during the 2007 legislative session. 2007 Nev. Stat., ch. 435, § 4,
at 2061-62. Section 4(2) of the bill as introduced provided for an explicit
waiver. S.B, 123, 74th Leg. (Nev., Feb. 20, 2007). However, the waiver
provision was later stricken by Amendment No. 415. S.B 123, Amendment
no. 415, § 4, 74th Leg. (Nev., Feb. 20, 2007); see also Hearing on S.B. 123
Before the Subcommittee of the Senate Comm. on Gov't Affairs, 74th Leg.
(Nev., Apr. 9, 2007) (expressing concern that the Department of Corrections
would not have time to address inmates’ requests for confidential records).
Accordingly, we hold that LVMPD did not waive its assertion of
confidentiality by failing to timely respond to RAGA’s requests.
The district court did not err as to the bodycam footage

RAGA argues that the district court erred in finding that the

 

bodycam footage constitutes juvenile justice information and therefore
denying its mandamus petition. RAGA contends that (1) bodyeam footage
is not subject to the confidentiality provisions listed in the NPRA,
(2) information on juvenile arrests does not constitute juvenile justice
information, (3) not all portions of the bodycam footage contain confidential

juvenile justice information, and (4) any confidential portions of the

 

 
bodycam footage could have been redacted. We affirm the district court’s
denial of RAGA’s mandamus petition as to the bodycam footage.
1

RAGA asserts that bodycam footage is not subject to the
confidentiality provisions listed in NRS 239.010(1) because the bodycam
footage statute, NRS 239.830, trumps such provisions. ‘The district court
found that bodycam footage is subject to a confidentiality provision, NRS
62H.025, which protects juvenile justice information from disclosure.
RAGA points to NRS 289.830(2), which states:

Any 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.

(Emphasis added.) RAGA posits that NRS 289.830(2Xb) allows for all
bodycam footage, even confidential portions, to be available for inspection.
We disagree.

We take this opportunity to clarify that, as a public record,
bodycam footage is subject to the NPRA. NRS 239.0101), 289.830(2). The
NPRA, however, expressly yields to confidentiality provisions. See NRS
239.010(1) (listing statutes exempted from the NPRA and providing that
records “otherwise declared by law to be confidential” are not subject to the
PRA). We note that the NPRA also yields to NRS 289.830 such that
bodycam footage, while a public record that is ordinarily subject to

'Bodycam footage is made by a portable event recording device.

 

 
on

 

disclosure, may only be disclosed under the parameters of NRS 289.830(2).
See id. NRS 289.830(2) limits how and when bodycam footage may be
disclosed. Specifically, it allows the public only to inspect bodyeam footage
containing confidential information that may not otherwise be redacted, at
‘the location where the record is held. In addition to these restrictions,
bodycam footage, as a public record, is also subject to the other numerous
Provisions listed in NRS 239.010(1) that guarantee confidentiality, such as
the provision protecting juvenile justice information, NRS 621.025.

To the extent that NRS 289.830(2Xb) conflicts with the
confidentiality provisions listed in the NPRA, such as NRS 62H.025, the
more specific confidentiality provisions control. See Piroozi v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 1004, 1009, 363 P.3d 1168, 1172 (2015)
(Where a general and a special statute, each relating to the same subject,
are in conflict and they cannot be read together, the special statute
controls.” (quoting Laird v. State Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 98 Nev. 42, 45, 639
P.2d 1171, 1173 (1982). To hold otherwise would undermine over 400
confidentiality provisions and unreasonably allow the public to access
otherwise confidential records solely because such records are contained
within bodycam footage, Without the Legislature's express direction
otherwise, we are unwilling to subject Nevadans to possibly having their
statutorily protected information disclosed because it was captured on a
police officer’s bodycam, Bodycam footage, like all other public records, is
subject to the confidentiality provisions listed in the NPRA.

2

RAGA argues that the statute governing juvenile justice

information, NRS 62H.025, does not apply when a juvenile is arrested but

 

not brought before a juvenile court. We disagree.

10

 
‘The NPRA expressly yields to NRS 62H.025, which mandates
that “{jluvenile justice information is confidential and may only be released
in accordance with the provisions of this section or as expressly authorized
by other federal or state law.” NRS 62H.025(1). “Juvenile justice
information’ means any information which is directly related to a child in
need of supervision, a delinquent child or any other child who is otherwise
subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” NRS 62H.025(6)b).

We hold that NRS 62H.025 unambiguously does not require
juveniles to be brought before the juvenile court for information to be
considered ‘juvenile justice information.” See In re CityCenter, 129 Nev. at
673-74, 310 P.3d at 578 (providing that, when a statute is unambiguous, the
court will apply its plain meaning). Indeed, NRS 62B.330(1) explicitly
provides that “the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a
child. . . who is alleged . .. tohave committed a delinquent act.” (Emphasis
added.) The district court found that the bodycam footage, including the
Portions containing Ford, contains juvenile justice information in part
because the footage directly relates to a juvenile-involved incident and the
arrest of juveniles. When juveniles are handcuffed and under the physical
supervision of the police, as here, they are under the direct authority of law
enforcement. Even if never brought before a juvenile court, at the time of
arrest there is an allegation that the juveniles committed a delinquent act
and they are presumed by the officers to be in need of supervision. Cf: NRS
62C.010(1). Any information directly related to the arrest of juveniles
therefore constitutes juvenile justice information.

3.
RAGA next argues that the district court erred in finding that

all portions of the bodycam footage contain confidential juvenile justice

 

 
information. Findings of fact are given deference and will not be set aside
unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence.
Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 129 Nev. 99, 105, 294 P.3d 427, 432
(2013). “{The governmental entity has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the public book or record, or part
thereof, is confidential.” NRS 239.0113. LVMPD provided the distriet court
with the relevant portions of the bodycam footage and a privilege log so that
the district court could conduct an in camera review, and the district court
subsequently found that all portions of the bodycam footage contain
confidential juvenile justice information.

After reviewing the bodyeam footage, we hold that substantial
evidence supports the district court's finding that all portions of the footage
contain juvenile justice information. The district court correctly found that
the bodycam footage, including the portions with Ford, directly relates to
the investigation of an incident involving a juvenile alleged to have
committed a delinquent act, rightfully explaining that the footage depicts
the area where the incident occurred, the arrest of juveniles, and
discussions regarding the charges and juvenile justice process. Moreover,
the district court properly noted that all communications at the scene,
including those involving Ford, directly relate to the juveniles and the
juvenile justice process. We therefore conclude that the district court did
not err.

4

RAGA posits that LVMPD could have redacted the bodyeam
footage to remove any confidential juvenile justice information. NRS
239.010(3) (2017) provides that a governmental entity shall not deny a

request for public records “on the basis that the requested public book or

 

 
record contains information that is confidential if the governmental entity
can redact, delete, conceal, or separate the confidential information from
the information included in the public book or record that is not otherwise
confidential.” This court has recognized, however, that a governmental
entity has no duty “to create new documents or customized reports by
searching for and compiling information from individuals’ files or other
records.” Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. of Nev. v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 129 Nev.
833, 840, 313 P.3d 221, 225 (2013),

‘We determine that redaction is not possible because all portions
of the bodycam footage contain confidential juvenile justice information,
even those portions depicting Ford. We are aware that RAGA has not seen
the bodycam footage, and we understand that the circumstances of this case
require RAGA to trust this court’s determination of confidentiality. Under
a different set of facts, a governmental entity may be able to separate
confidential periods of bodycam footage from substantial nonconfidential
periods or blur the occasional juvenile’s face to redact or otherwise edit out
confidential material. But that is not the case here. Ford’s depiction and
any communications he makes are inextricably commingled with the
confidential juvenile justice information. Had Ford communicated or acted
in a manner beyond that which directly related to the juveniles, NRS
239.010(3) would have required disclosure of that portion of the bodycam
footage. To require LVMPD to redact the confidential bodycam footage
here, however, would leave RAGA with no footage left to view. In light of

rict court did not abuse its discretion in

 

the foregoing, we hold that the di
denying RAGA’s mandamus petition as to the bodycam footage.

 

 
 

The district court abused its discretion as to the other related records

There is a remaining question of whether the district court
abused its discretion in denying RAGA’s mandamus petition as to the
related records, including the police report, witness and victim statements,
computer-aided dispatch, and other statements by officers.‘ A district court
abuses its discretion when it fails to conduct an “individualized exercise of
discretion” in the context of analyzing issues in a writ petition or fails to
consider such a petition “upon its own merits.” Willmes v. Reno Mun. Court,
118 Nev. 831, 835, 59 P.3d 1197, 1200 (2002); cf: Patterson v. State, 129 Nev.
168, 176, 298 P.3d 433, 439 (2013). Because the district court did not view

 

these records or make any specific findings as to whether these records
contain confidential juvenile justice information, we conclude that it abused
its discretion. We therefore reverse the district court's order as to the

 

“LVMPD’s argument that RAGA failed to preserve its NPRA request
‘as to the other related records on appeal is misguided. While we do not
consider points not urged in the district court, Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown,
97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981), we conclude that RAGA sufficiently
raised the issue of LVMPD’s denial of all the records it requested in its
district court petition, in part by attaching those requests as exhibits to its
petition. RAGA’s second request specifically asked for the police report,
witness and victim statements, computer-aided dispatch, and other
statements by officers. Furthermore, in its reply brief in support of its
petition, RAGA explained that it asked for other related records in addition
to bodycam footage and that its statutory construction arguments apply to
both. Therefore, RAGA preserved the entirety of its NPRA request.

We need not address LVMPD's argument that RAGA failed to
provide notice to a juvenile justice agency as required under NRS
62H.025(2Xr) because the district court did not evaluate whether the
records even contain any juvenile justice information.

4

 
one

 

related records and remand for the district court to properly determine
whether the related records are subject to NPRA disclosure.
CONCLUSION

Having concluded that LVMPD did not waive its assertion of
confidentiality by failing to timely respond to RAGA’s NPRA requests and
that the district court did not err in finding that all portions of the bodycam
footage contain juvenile justice information, we affirm the district court
order denying RAGA's NPRA petition for a writ of mandamus as to the
bodycam footage. However, we reverse as to the other related records and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

* Lig , J
Stiglich

We concur

planta 3

Hardesty

ited;

Silver
1s