Opinion ID: 2622776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The citizen review board subpoena's validity and enforceability

Text: Only subpoenas that have been issued by an entity properly endowed with the authority to issue the subpoenas are enforceable in court. [29] NRS 289.390(1)(c) authorizes an advisory review board panel to, [w]ithin the scope of its jurisdiction, issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify before the panel. As no concerns regarding the validity of NRS 289.390 have been raised on appeal, the question before this court is whether, as the district court so determined, the citizen review board's subpoena was properly issued under subsection (1)(c) of that statute. PPA argues that the citizen review board had no authority to subpoena Officer Leyba because it lacks jurisdiction over the investigations of the citizen complaint under NRS 289.385, which prohibits an advisory review board from assuming jurisdiction over any matters involving allegations of criminal conduct. The citizen review board, in turn, points out that no formal criminal investigation has been instituted and no criminal charges have been filed, and that the police department, in its investigations of the citizen complaint, never indicated that any criminal conduct was implicated. This court reviews matters of statutory interpretation de novo, construing a statute so as to give effect to the Legislature's intent in enacting it. [30] When the statute is clearly worded, we generally may not go beyond the statute's language to determine the Legislature's intent. [31] The language of a statute should thus be given its plain meaning, unless doing so violates the spirit of the act [32] or produces `absurd or unreasonable results.' [33] When the statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, however, it is ambiguous, and factors peripheral to the statute's language properly may be considered to determine the Legislature's intent. [34] NRS 289.385(1) provides that an advisory review board [d]oes not have jurisdiction over any matter in which it is alleged that a crime has been committed. Both parties acknowledge that the citizen complaint does not include the terms crime or criminal, the police department did not label its investigations a criminal matter, and no criminal charges were filed or pending. PPA nevertheless asserts that a complaint involving false arrest and intentional wrongdoing must include facts that constitute, or could fall within the legal elements of, certain crimes. Accordingly, PPA insists, such complaints allege that a crime was committed and the citizen review board's involvement with them necessarily runs afoul of NRS 289.385(1)'s jurisdictional limitation. We disagree. As PPA notes, allege generally means to assert without proof. [35] But Black's Law Dictionary defines allege as follows: [t]o state, recite, claim, assert, or charge; to make an allegation. [36] Allegation is defined as the assertion, claim, declaration, or statement of a party to an action, made in a pleading, setting out what he expects to prove. [37] The dictionaries' definitions are not entirely consistent, the former two descriptions being much broader than the latter. Moreover, none of these definitions clarifies whether an allegation exists when facts that comprise elements of a crime are asserted, or whether more formal language or action regarding the alleged crime is required. A crime is generally considered to involve the commission of any conduct or omission forbidden and punishable by public law. [38] Thus, NRS 289.385(1)'s prohibition could reasonably be read to exclude any matter in which it is asserted, without proof (or intent to prove), that legally prohibited conduct was committed, i.e., advisory review boards have no jurisdiction over any matter in which facts that could constitute a crime are asserted without proof. The provision, however, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation; it could likewise prohibit advisory review boards from entertaining matters in which it is stated, claimed or anticipated that a legally punishable crime will be proven. [39] A review of NRS 289.385's legislative history suggests that, while many interested persons wished to include criminal matters in the scope of advisory review boards' operations, the Legislature did not desire advisory review boards to assume jurisdiction over criminal matters. [40] Instead, the legislative history intimates that advisory review boards were designed to address only policy violations, even if those violations occurred within the context of a criminal act. [41] Thus, supporting the second, less broad interpretation, the legislative history indicates that the provision was intentionally designed to include a jurisdictional limitation preventing an advisory review board from becoming entangled with an investigation or proceeding that might lead to criminal charges or the verification of a crime. Further, policy reasons support this interpretation. Ultimately, counties and municipalities were permitted to create advisory review boards in an effort to encourage positive relations and communications between communities and law enforcement agencies by enabling community members to work with police departments in resolving citizen-related issues concerning peace officers. [42] If NRS 289.385(1) is interpreted to prohibit advisory review boards from considering departmental policy violations in the context of a complaint merely asserting facts that could possibly, if found true, constitute a crime, the legislation's spirit and purpose would be violated. Such a result would be untenable under ordinary rules of statutory construction. [43] Therefore, the question of jurisdiction ultimately focuses on the nature of the investigation, and not on whether specific elements of a crime have been alleged within the context of a citizen complaint: the citizen review board may not (1) refer a citizen complaint to the police department for a criminal investigation or to pursue criminal charges, or (2) review a police department's internal investigations for concerns regarding violations of criminal statutes. In this respect, we see no conflict with the Clark County and Las Vegas Municipal Codes' jurisdictional limitations; the codes do not purport to expand the citizen review board's jurisdictional limitation. [44] Here, the citizen complaint ostensibly asserts that the citizen was wrongfully arrested and harassed by the officers in retaliation for filing a prior citizen complaint. It also alleges that the citizen was physically threatened and that the citizen's apartment was entered and searched without valid permission and reasons. Despite the false arrest and harassment terms used in its early letters, however, there is no indication in the record that the citizen review board referred the matter for criminal investigation, or that the police department investigated the officers' conduct solely with regard to possible criminal violations. Moreover, the citizen review board sufficiently demonstrated to the district court that it was merely reviewing the police department's internal investigations and its determination with respect to the citizen complaint that Officer Leyba had not violated internal police department policies, not any allegations of criminal conduct. Accordingly, the district court appropriately ordered the crime-related terms false arrest and harassment stricken from the citizen review board's documents. And consequently, the citizen review board matter involves no allegations that a crime has been committed. Because the citizen review board has jurisdiction over citizen matters involving allegations of improper, but noncriminal, conduct, the citizen review board was within its jurisdiction to consider the matter, and its subpoena directing Officer Leyba to appear before the hearing panel is valid under NRS 289.390(1). Therefore, the district court properly enforced the subpoena.