Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

AM. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEV. v. CLARK CNTY. SCHOOL DIST.

Nevada Supreme Court

• Citations: 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24

• Docket Number: 88680

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (16.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

442 Nev., Advance Opinion 2 &|

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION No. 88680
OF NEVADA,

Appellant, . =
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, *
Respondent. - MAR 26 2026

E A. BRO'
su URT
BY
[EF DEPUTY CLERK

Appeal from a district court order denying in part and granting

in part a petition for a writ of mandamus in a public records matter. Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Danielle Pieper, Judge.
Affirmed.

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Christopher M. Peterson and
Jacob Smith Valentine, North Las Vegas,
for Appellant.

Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, and Jackie V. Nichols, Las
Vegas,
for Respondent.

Kaempfer Crowell and Lyssa S. Anderson, Kristopher J. Kalkowski, and
Travis C. Studdard, Las Vegas,

for Amici Curiae Washoe County Sheriffs Office, Carson City Sheriff's
Office, Douglas County Sheriffs Office, City of Sparks, City of Elko Police
Department, City of North Las Vegas, North Las Vegas Police Department,
Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, and Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department.

Supreme Court
OF

Nevapa Vb - 13894
(Oy N07 asia

Supreme Court
OF
NevabA

(0) 1947 BE

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PARRAGUIRRE, BELL, and
STIGLICH, Ju.

OPINION
By the Court, BELL, J::

State agencies must promptly release public documents
requested under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA), NRS Chapter 239.
The NPRA carves out exceptions for certain confidential documents,
however. Relevant here, the NPRA excepts from its disclosure
requirements documents covered by NRS 289.080, which makes
confidential information relating to internal investigations of peace officers
for misconduct. When read as a whole, we conclude that NRS 289.080
makes confidential, and thus exempts from NPRA disclosure, the file

concerning an internal investigation of a peace officer.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 9, 2023, a video circulated on social media
depicting a Clark County School District (CCSD) police officer grabbing,
throwing, and pinning down a juvenile outside of Durango High School in
Las Vegas. After the incident, the American Civil Liberties Union of
Nevada (ACLU) sought records relating to the incident from the school
district. CCSD responded three weeks later with only limited information
related to employee training. In its response, CCSD asserted privileges and
justifications in defense of the limited disclosure.

After receiving this first batch of records, the ACLU reiterated
its initial request and explained that Nevada law required a list identifying
the withheld records, along with a specific invocation of privilege for each

document. CCSD then sent the ACLU a compiled list of justifications for

Supreme Court
OF
NEVADA

(Or 7A car

denying the records request. Specifically, CCSD asserted certain
documents were exempt from disclosure because they were evidence in an
ongoing employment investigation of the officer, citing NRS Chapter 289.

In response, the ACLU filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
with the district court, seeking an order compelling CCSD to release its
records pursuant to the NPRA. After several rounds of briefing, the district
court ordered CCSD to provide a privilege log. In the log, CCSD listed
thirteen pages of records and reiterated its justifications for nondisclosure.
The ACLU challenged the asserted privileges and claimed that CCSD failed
to sufficiently demonstrate how the privileges applied to the records. CCSD
replied, arguing the balance of equities leaned in favor of not releasing the
investigative file.

After a hearing and supplemental briefing, the district court
issued a final order, finding that the body-worn camera footage of the
incident, the citation, the incident report, and the dispatch log were public
records subject to disclosure with specific redactions. The court also found
the internal affairs investigation report and most of the records within the
investigative file were confidential and not subject to disclosure under the
NPRA. The ACLU appeals.

DISCUSSION
On appeal, the ACLU raises the issue of whether the district

court properly precluded disclosure of CCSD’s investigative file under the
NPRA and NRS 289.080. We review a district court's decision to grant or
deny a writ petition for an abuse of discretion, but when the writ petition
raises questions of statutory interpretation, we review de novo. Reno
Newspapers, Inc. v. Washoe Cnty. Sheriff, 126 Nev. 211, 214, 234 P.3d 922,

924 (2010). We “construe statutes as a whole, so that all provisions are

Supreme Court
OF
Nevaba

(OETA, eR

considered together.” Orion Portfolio Servs. 2, LEC v. County of Clark ex
rel. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 126 Nev. 397, 403, 245 P.8d 527, 531 (2010).
In addition, we will not read the statute's language “so as to produce absurd
or unreasonable results.” Jd. Because NRS 289.080 prevents the officer
under investigation from accessing the investigative file unless the
investigating agency recommends punitive action, we conclude that
information within the investigative file is exempt from disclosure under
the NPRA.

Generally, the NPRA presumes disclosure of public records: “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).
We have previously held that rebutting this presumption requires either an
explicit statute making the record confidential or a conclusion that a privacy
or law enforcement interest outweighs the public’s interest in the
information. See Reno Newspapers, 126 Nev. at 212, 234 P.3d at 923. This
case involves the statutory means of rebuttal.

The Nevada Legislature included within NRS 239.010(1)
exemptions from the NPRA’s general disclosure requirements, including
NRS 289.080. We previously reasoned in Clark County Office of the
Coroner/ Medical Examiner v. Las Vegas Review-Journal that the NPRA’s
mandate of presumed transparency requires any exceptions to be construed
narrowly. 136 Nev. 44, 50, 458 P.3d 1048, 1054 (2020); see also NRS
239.001(3). In that case, a newspaper requested five years of juvenile
autopsy records from the coroner’s office. 136 Nev. at 46, 458 P.3d at 1051.
The NPRA exempted from its purview the subject of a statute concerning
the operation of coroners’ child-death review teams, which the coroner's

office used to deny the request. We narrowly interpreted the statute and

Supreme Count
OF
NEVADA

1) FA, AERIS

concluded that only records “acquired by” the review team were confidential
based on the language of the specific statute. Jd. at 54, 458 P.3d at 1057.
We further concluded the protective language of the statute applied only to
the review team and not to any other agency, regardless of review team
activity. Id. Thus, the NPRA exemption did not serve as a categorical
justification to withhold all juvenile autopsy records. Jd. at 50, 458 P.3d at
1054. Consequently, the scope of what may be withheld from disclosure
reflects the scope of what is made confidential by a listed statute.

Here, NRS 289.080 prescribes rights afforded to peace officers
during an internal investigation into an officer’s alleged misconduct,
including the right to have a representative. NRS 289.080(1)-(3). The
officer's representative may assist the officer, clarify answers given by the
officer, and refute any negative implications within the officer’s responses
to questioning, NRS 289.080(3), (4). Notably, NRS 289.080(6) and (7)
provide that information the representative obtains from the peace officer
“is confidential and must not be disclosed.” Finally, if the investigating
agency ultimately recommends punitive action, NRS 289.080(9) requires
the officer be given an opportunity to review “any evidence” in the agency’s
possession and the opportunity to submit a response. Should the officer
then appeal the agency’s decision to impose punitive action, the statute
gives the officer and their representative the right to review and copy “the
entire file concerning the internal investigation, including... evidence,
recordings, notes, transcripts of interviews and documents contained in the
file.” NRS 289.080(9).

The ACLU argues that a narrow reading of the statute
explicitly deems confidential only the information an_ officer’s

representative receives from a peace officer in the course of the

Supreme Court
OF
Nevaba

(O) 197A eR

investigation. This position fails to take into account that even the officer
being investigated is not entitled to the contents of the entire investigative
file unless and until the investigating agency recommends punitive action
against the officer. NRS 289.080(9).

Taking the ACLU’s interpretation to its logical conclusion
would potentially result in a file being publicly available through the NPRA
even though the peace officer under investigation could not access the
entirety of the file under NRS 289.080. This renders an illogical result and
contravenes the overall purpose of the statute, which is to provide due
process rights to peace officers under investigation. Our reading of NRS
289.080 indicates the legislature intended to exclude these documents from
disclosure, at least absent a law enforcement agency recommending adverse
employment action. Accordingly, we conclude the district court correctly
interpreted NRS 289.080 to bar disclosure of the investigative file in this
case.

Our decision here is a narrow one. Nothing in this opinion
should be construed as excising or amending our prior NPRA jurisprudence.
We write today to clarify only that information contained in an investigative
file is exempt from the NPRA’s general disclosure requirement to the extent
the information is confidential under NRS 289.080.

CONCLUSION
The Nevada Legislature included NRS 289.080 in its list of

statutes that create exemptions from the NPRA’s general disclosure
requirements. We read the statute and its mention in the NPRA to bar
disclosure of an investigative file of a peace officer subject to an internal

affairs investigation as a public record to the same extent its disclosure is

Supreme Court
OF
NevaDA

CO PTA eee

prevented under NRS 289.090. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

Bell (C/V

We concur:

Parraguirre

Stiglich