ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK 0 SU REME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF: E. S., A CHILD. No. 82614 

• FILED 

AUG 1 1 2022 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

E. S., A CHILD, 

Res • ondent. 

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND 

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a pretrial 

motion to suppress evidence. Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; 

Robert W. Lane, Judge. 

E.S., a minor, was charged with sexual assault against his exgirlfriend, also a minor. Nye County Sheriff's Office detectives interviewed 

E.S. at the high school he attended but did not notify the principal or E.S.'s 

parents prior to doing so. They advised E.S. of his Miranda rights and that 

he had the right to have a parent present, and E.S. chose to speak to 

detectives without counsel or his parents present. E.S. moved to suppress 

the statements made to detectives, and the district court granted the 

motion, with the sole basis being that detectives failed to follow the policy 

of the Nye County Sheriff's Office, which required that detectives notify the 

school principal of the interview. The State appeals.1

On an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress, this 

court reviews findings of fact for clear error, but if the legal consequences of 

those facts involve questions of law they are reviewed de novo. State v. 

Lloyd, 129 Nev. 739, 743, 312 P.3d 467, 469 (2013). When reviewing for 

clear error, this court "ask [s] whether, 'on the entire evidence,' [it] is 'left 

1We recount facts only as necessary for our disposition. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1947A • • 
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." 

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S. 

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). "[I]nvoluntary statements should 

be suppressed as well as incriminating statements made by a suspect under 

custodial interrogation unless Miranda warnings have been given or other 

procedural safeguards have been followed." Somee v. State, 124 Nev. 434, 

444, 187 P.3d 152, 159 (2008). 

The record supports the district court's finding that the sheriff's 

office detectives failed to follow the governing internal policies and 

procedures. As for the legal question of whether a violation of a sheriff's 

office's policy can serve as the sole basis for granting a motion to suppress, 

we conclude that the district court erred. 

The ultimate purpose of the Nye County Sheriff's Office policy 

cited in this case is to enable the principal to inform the student's parents. 

This preserves the parents' statutory right to be informed. See NRS 

62C.010(2) (stating that when a child is taken into custody "[t]he officer 

shall, without undue delay, attempt to notify, if known, the parent or 

guardian of the child."). In Ford v. State, 122 Nev. 796, 802, 138 P.3d 500, 

504 (2006), we concluded the following: 

NRS 62C.010 does not impose a duty on law 

enforcement to notify a juvenile's parents as a 

condition to obtaining a voluntary statement from 

the juvenile, regardless of the nature of the crime 

being investigated. Rather, that statute serves 

only to notify parents that their child is in the 

custody of the police, and it offers no remedy when 

police fail to do so. 

We further noted that whether parents have been notified does not impact 

whether the police may interview juvenile suspects, but only has "limited 

bearing on whether a juvenile's statement is voluntary." Id. at 803, 138 

P.3d at 505. Therefore, because the ultimate goal of this Nye County 

2 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

10) I947A 
Sheriff's Office policy is parental notification, and parental notification is 

simply a factor to consider when determining the voluntariness of the 

statements made, not a definitive basis upon which to determine whether 

the minor's statements should be suppressed, E.S.'s statements could not 

be suppressed for this reason alone.2 Therefore, we reverse the district 

court's order and remand this case for further proceedings so the district 

court may conduct the full factual and legal inquiry that it did not reach 

when it instead decided this case only on the policy violation issue.3

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

Hardesty 

A(Libat-0 J. 

Stiglich 

J. 

Herndon 

2The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed this issue and 

concluded that "[a] violation by the government of its internal operating 

procedures, on its own, does not create a basis for suppressing 

[statements]." United States v. Luck, 852 F.3d 615, 623 (6th Cir. 2017) 

(second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

3To the extent the parties' additional arguments are not addressed 

herein, we have reviewed those arguments and we conclude they do not 

warrant a different result. 

3 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

10) I947A 
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County District Attorney 

Morton Law, PLLC 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4 

10) I947A <Italia