Police Department DENIES Due Process and Ends Up in Court!

Preview

A high-stakes legal battle erupted in Las Vegas when the Metropolitan Police Department flatly refused to release a defendant on electronic monitoring as ordered by the court. Citing public safety concerns and statutory authority, law enforcement clashed head-on with the judiciary. The fiery courtroom showdown exposed deep institutional friction over who holds the final say on pre-trial release.

The Pre-Trial Release Battle

The legal controversy centered on defendant Joshua Sanchez Lopez, who found himself back in custody facing 27 felony charges following a previous bench warrant and subsequent arrest. When Judge Eric Goodman set bail at $25,000, he explicitly ordered that upon posting bond, Sanchez Lopez be released to the electronic monitoring program managed by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro).

Instead of complying, Metro balked. Citing a high risk to public safety, prior failures to appear, and program violations, the agency informed the court it would refuse the release. When Judge Goodman ordered Metro to comply within 24 hours, the sheriff’s office fired back with an emergency motion for a stay, setting the stage for a bitter contempt showdown.

Due Process vs. Sheriff’s Discretion

During the heated hearing before Judge Goodman, Public Defender David Westbrook fiercely attacked Metro’s actions, calling out what he described as a secretive, “star chamber” process. Westbrook argued that the police department was operating a shadow review system behind closed doors, denying defendants due process by rejecting pre-trial release programs without consistent standards or transparency.

“He knows he’s wrong on the law. So he’s trying to go out there… to stoke fear when what we should actually be scared of is this back room denial of people’s rights without any due process.”

Metro’s defense relied on state statutes—specifically sections 211.252 and 211.300 of the Nevada Revised Statutes—which allow the sheriff or chief of police to supervise prisoners electronically only if they conclude it poses no unreasonable risk to public safety. Metro maintained that while a judge has the authority to approve placement, the statute reserves an independent, non-compellable safety determination for the sheriff.

The District Court Precedent and Ruling

Complicating matters, a parallel case handled by Clark County District Court Judge Erica Mendoza had recently addressed a nearly identical legal question. In that matter, Judge Mendoza discharged an order to show cause against the sheriff, ruling that the agency possessed the statutory authority to decline placements deemed unsafe.

Armed with this persuasive precedent via a newly filed notice of supplemental authority, Judge Goodman chose to follow suit. Despite Westbrook’s impassioned pleas for a continuance to fully brief the new filing, Judge Goodman denied the request, noting that the broader constitutional battle was already headed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Conclusion

Aligning with the district court’s reasoning, Judge Goodman discharged the order to show cause, declining to hold Metro in contempt. With Sanchez Lopez remaining in custody and the core dispute escalating to the Nevada Supreme Court, the case highlights an ongoing tug-of-war: does the ultimate power to release a pre-trial detainee rest with the judge who weighs the facts, or the sheriff tasked with community safety?

Police Department DENIES Due Process and Ends Up i...