287 P.3d 305
Nev.2012Background
- Officer-involved deaths in Clark County trigger coroner’s inquests under CCCO Title 2, Chapter 2.12; Clark County amended the inquest ordinance to require a presiding officer who must be a qualified magistrate defined as a Nevada attorney-licensed justice of the peace within Clark County; county uses a panel-based fact-finding process with interrogatories; district attorney and coroner participate in non-adversarial, non-binding fact-finding; NRS provisions govern coroners and inquest procedures, with differences for counties with appointed coroners versus sheriffs serving as deputy coroners; the district court granted a TRO and later denied most claims, while the en banc court granted expedited briefing and allowed amicus participation; the plaintiffs challenged due process and the role of justices of the peace under Nevada Constitution Article 6, §8 and NRS provisions; the court considered severability of the inquest scheme if JP participation violated constitutional jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inquest is investigatory or adjudicatory for due process purposes | Appellants argue due process applies because the inquest could affect liability. | Respondents contend the inquest is purely investigatory and does not adjudicate rights. | Investigatory; no due process liability findings. |
| Whether JP participation in Clark County inquest violates the Nevada Constitution’s JP jurisdiction | Clark County’s use of JPs as presiding officers encroaches on legislative jurisdiction over JP authority. | NRS/CCCO provisions permit JP participation where coroner is not appointed; Clark County is distinguished. | Unconstitutional intrusion; cannot have JP preside in officer-involved inquests in Clark County. |
| Whether the inquest scheme can be severed if JP provision is struck | If JP provision is unconstitutional, the rest of the scheme should stand. | Severability depends on remaining portions functioning independently. | No severability; entire inquest scheme for officer-involved deaths must be struck down. |
| Whether the court should sever CCCO § 2.12.010(1) while preserving rest of scheme | Not applicable; severance would render inquest framework ineffective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1960) (investigatory proceedings may not implicate adjudicatory due process rights)
- Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1969) (adjudicatory findings require due process confrontations)
- Aponte v. Calderon, 284 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 2002) (synthesizes Hannah/Jenkins distinction for executive-ordered commissions)
- Flamingo Paradise Gaming v. Att’y General, 125 Nev. 502 (Nev. 2009) (severability framework for statutes enacted by ballot measure)
- We the People Nev. v. Secretary of State, 192 P.3d 1166 (Nev. 2008) (statutory interpretation guidance for harmony among provisions)
- State v. Justice Court, 919 P.2d 401 (Nev. 1996) (jurisdiction of justices of the peace; limited jurisdiction)