Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers

What's New

Feb 10, 2012 (11:49:00)

NAPSO Member Reinstated After Arbitration Decision (UPDATED)

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, a Washoe County officer and NAPSO member was reinstated to his position with full back pay, following his termination and a multi-day arbitration hearing.

During the hearing that included testimoy from 16 witnesses and more than 600 pages of exhibits, NAPSO's Executive Director and Chief Labor Representative, Rick McCann, asserted that the department's internal affairs investigation was riddled with improprieties. In his decision, the arbitrator agreed, concluding that the investigation was not credible and that the department (including its senior staff and its Chief), rushed to find fault with the officer, while ignoring exculpatory evidence.

The arbitrator condemned the department for soliticiting half-truths from people in order to build a case against the officer. Referring to one of the charges against the officer brought by a high ranking command staffer, the arbitrator concluded that the alleged incident was "entirely a figment of [the commander's] imagination." The arbitrator agreed with the defense that some segments of the the investigating personnel's testimony were false. And, responding to McCann's calling of a witness who testified to being intimidated by a command individual regarding their testimony, the arbitrator chastised the command staffer for attempting to coach the witness into supporting the Chief's position in the case. The arbitrator concluded by stating that the investigation "contained more than a hint of pretext" and that it was "unfairly skewed and result-oriented."

Update: On December 30, 2011, the employer filed a Petition for Judicial Review and a Motion for Stay, seeking to suspend the arbitrator's decision pending appeal (state law enforcement do not have the benefit of collective bargaining, so the parties can appeal arbitration decisons to District Court).

In a direct and decisive Order dated February 3, 2012, the District Court judge denied the employer's Motion for Stay, finding that the employer is not likely to prevail in its appeal. Despite such Orders, however, the employer refuses to reinstate the member to full duty (the member has been paid his base wages during this time). NAPSO will now seek an Order of contempt against the Chief of Police and others within the department for refusing to obey lawful orders of the Court and the arbitrator.

Congratulations to our NAPSO member for continuing to fight the good fight and prevailing in this case.

NAPSO Member Acquitted

Feb 10, 2012 (11:48:00)

NAPSO's Criminal Defense Team Scores Acquittal for Member

On Wednesday, November 23, 2011, a Nye County Deputy Sheriff and NAPSO member was acquitted of all charges in a case that has existed since March 2008. The charges included sexual misconduct with a prisoner, kidnapping and oppression under color of law.

Since those alleged incidents in early 2008, NAPSO has been there to represent its member. The member didn't spend one dime of his own money to defend his good name and reputation. Instead, NAPSO's dedicated team of criminal lawyers and staff, led by attorney Michael Becker of the Las Vegas Defense Group, dug into the case and dismantled the prosecution's case before a jury that took less than 30 minutes to arrive at its verdict.

All told, NAPSO spent more than $150,000 on legal teams who represented the member since 2008. But, that's not the point. The importance of this story is that justice was done and NAPSO's member prevailed. Final results -- that's what NAPSO is all about !!

Individual Members Welcome

Jan 11, 2012 (09:47:00)

NAPSO Opens Membership to Individuals !!!

The Board of Directors of NAPSO recently decided to open its legal and administrative defense services to qualified individual peace officers who are not members of our affiliated Associations. After countless inquiries made by professionals from several law enforcement agencies, including mostly the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, it was decided to take these steps to offer our superior benefits and services to these hard working men and women.

Historically, NAPSO has represented the membership of entire Associations, and that will continue to be our mission (we currently represent members from 20 public safety Associations, including more than 50 state, county and municipal bureaus and divisions in Nevada). However, for reasons that are none of our business, members of non-affiliated Associations (like Metro PPA) have been sending their messages of interest in NAPSO's legal and administrative plan.

Is NAPSO encouraging members from Metro PPA or other non-affiliated Associations to leave their parent group to join NAPSO? Absolutely not. But, is NAPSO now offering to represent those members for their legal and administrative needs, either in conjunction with, or separate from, the parent groups? Yes. We feel that this is consistent with our mission to help ALL public safety officers throughout Nevada.

The choice is up to the members, as it always is with NAPSO. Click below to review a brochure that outlines the NAPSO Legal & Administrative Plan, as well as the basic representation contract and a 1-page sheet that gives us your contact and billing information. Take a look at these documents and call NAPSO'S Executive Director, Rick McCann for more information and to obtain the sign-up documents. The dues are $40 per month, paid quarterly, and part of that money is set aside to cover any expenses of arbitration or litigation that a member may need (in other words, it costs you nothing but your dues to receive our UNCAPPED, UNLIMITED representation).

There is no comparison. Despite the desperate (and completely untrue) comments from others with the Las Vegas Metro PPA, NAPSO's plan is superior to them all. The choice is yours, and now we've made our plan available to more people than ever before!!

Click the following to see the brochure and other sign-up documents:

Download:

Representation Agreement.Legal Defense Only.No Costs.pdf,

Member Enrollment Data.pdf,

NAPSO brochure.Legal & Admin. Plan.pdf

New Coroner's Inquest Rules

Dec 05, 2011 (12:17:00)

New Coroner's Inquest Rules = New Procedures for NAPSO Members

As many of you know, the Clark County Commission recently convened public hearings to discuss changes to the existing procedures for conducting Coroner’s Inquests following officer involved deaths.

While most people employed in the law enforcement profession felt that the existing fact finding procedures were sound and provided adequate fairness and due process for the deceased’s families, the involved officers and general community interests, several civilian groups lobbied our County Commissioners for changes that were designed to place more of an adversarial spin on the Inquest procedure and obtain future results that negatively impact law enforcement. Simply put, it is the belief of many who participated in the review process that the sole intent of these changes was to acquire skewed findings that can be used to prosecute and/or civilly sue officers involved in the use of deadly force.

Based upon communications with the District Attorney’s office, our member Associations and other non-member law enforcement Unions, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of our Clark County members NOT to participate in any investigations conducted by the agency’s homicide investigators (unless the circumstances of a particular case require otherwise) or to testify at the subsequent Coroner’s Inquest proceeding.

The reasons for these recommendations are simple: (1) the new Coroner’s Inquest rules will allow for an Ombudsperson (a licensed attorney) to be appointed to represent the deceased’s family in all inquest proceedings, meaning that officers and all other witnesses will now be subject to cross-examination designed to implicate the officers in criminal or civilly liable conduct; and (2) pre-Inquest conferences will now be conducted with the Ombudsperson and the deceased’s family, who will be given complete access to all police investigative files and Coroner’s files (including any statements you provide) involving the death – a discovery tool that can be used to further implicate officers in wrongful conduct during the Coroner’s Inquest.

Please understand that members SHOULD continue to provide what has become known as a “Public Safety Statement" to the first responding supervisor at the scene. A Public Safety statement is generally defined as including:

(1) Information relating to any injuries to officers, surviving suspects or witnesses

(2) The location of the incident

(3) Information regarding any outstanding suspects, including vehicle information

(4) The direction of any shots fired

(5) The identities of any witness officers or civilians

(6) Any other evidence located at the scene

However, this information should be provided in a summary manner, and the member is cautioned against engaging in an interview or interrogation at the scene until Union representatives arrive. Keep in mind that evaluations of a deadly force response are based upon the involved officer’s state of mind at the time of the shooting – what he/she knew or reasonably believed that led them to shoot or use other deadly force. That is NOT part of a Public Safety statement and should not be discussed with anyone other than your designated Union lawyers or lawyer representatives.

Our recommendation against participating in the homicide investigation, either at the scene or in follow-up interviews, is not meant to discredit the investigators of your agency. Unfortunately, they are caught in the middle of this new process, because while officers want to cooperate with their brethren to obtain important information about the incident, any such statements will now be the subject of pre-Inquest discovery by the deceased’s families and the Ombudsperson who may attempt to use those statements to distort the real facts of the case. If you are asked to participate in voluntary post-incident interviews conducted by any investigators, simply advise them that, "Upon the advice of my represenatives, I do not wish to participate in any interviews at this time." Your representatives will advise you at every step of the process, and will recommend such statements if they become necessary.

There will always be the inherent desire to tell your story to investigating officers and the public at the Coroner’s Inquest. We understand and respect that need. However, these new rules were not designed to assist an unbiased fact finding mission. Rather, they were designed to permit an adversarial proceeding with the ultimate intent of prosecuting officers and providing discovery options that will foster more frivolous lawsuits against officers and their employers. Remember, the District Attorney’s office and the civil Courts are still available to redress criminal or civil wrongs. The Coroner’s Inquest should not be another adversarial proceeding designed to persecute peace officers for doing their jobs.

These new rules are just now going into effect, so it’s likely that the process will continue to evolve. More questions will arise and more answers will be forthcoming as the new Inquest rules take shape. NAPSO will continue to provide updated information and recommendations as they are needed. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact the NAPSO office at (702) 431-2677.

Click the following link for newly adopted Coroner's Inquest rules:

Download:

Coroner's Inquest amended rules.pdf

NAPSO's Vision