DISTRICT COURT CIVIL COVER SHEET a CCouny, Nevada caeno. A-17-751214-C_ Dept XXVI ge y ler ie) ‘LParty Information Grenteton tonceatnaling ature Salen) Plants) (nameluddress?phone) [Petendaniaynameradreponey LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE ASSOCIATION METRO, INC., @ Nevada non-profit | ‘TMENT, an agency of the State oF Corporati a ~ — Attorney (name/uddress/phone): oe ‘Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. 720 South Seventh Street, 3rd Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 - (702) 385-9595 i TI, Nature of Controversy plearesele the one most appleate filing npe blow Civil Case Filing Types R ‘andlor Dlontovsit Dewiner Blotter Landtnarreaan Tite to Property (osc Forectosure Cloner Tite 1 Property Oiner Real Property eonenaontininent Domain Clothe Rea roe | Negligence Cawo Premises iit Dorner Malpractice wesicarbenat Dtezat Brcouning lorie matpretice Other Forts Tors | Correduc rib lenina isconduct | Eemotoyment Tort Clinsarance Tor [lJotser ron ~ Probate (eelect ease vale) summary Administration lecnerat aan Bsveciat Aaminstraton sa asiae [ftrsuconserstrehip Coste rota Estate Val Lover 20,000 penicen $100,000 sn $200,000 [Blunder $10,000 oF Unknown Blues 500 Defect & Contract ~ Construction Detect Cleraners0 Gloster consruction Defect Contract Case nites commeria Code ositaing and Consevton tosurane carer commercial instrument conection of accounts Blemeymen contact Tloties conaet Jods Review hp Tulsa Review rorectosie Mediation Case reision to Seat Resor [Ment Competeney Nevada Sate Ageney Appeal [locparment of Motor Vehicle [Elworkers Compensation otter nevada Site Agency ‘Appeal Other Lrreat fom Lower Cour other suai Reviow/Appest Crit war Gir Writ (wei or tabeas Comes [ivr or tandamus wei orgun Warn [vei orPetibition Lote civit wei Other Chil Filing, ‘Other Chil Fling comprumis o Minors Cam Olronign iment PRloriss csi Maer See other side for ani related eas fiElectronically Filed 02/16/2017 01:42:58 PM cOoM ‘ Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. Ww t Bern Nevada Bar No. 3811 Keith D. Williams, Esq. CLERK OF THE COURT Nevada Bar No. 10796 THE LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY P. SGRO 720 South Seventh Street, 3" Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 eee ro@psrlegal.com if Auorneys for Plaint DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE Case No.: A~17-751214-C ASSOCIATION METRO, INC., a Nevada non- profit corporation, Dept. No. XXVI Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR vs. a) Declaratory Relief b) Injunctive Relief DEPARTMENT, an agency of the State of Nevada; DOE DEFENDANTS | through 10: ARBITRATION EXEMPTION CLAIMED: and ROE DEFENDANTS | through 10. DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff, LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION METRO, INC., by and LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE | j | through its attorneys of record, the Law Offices of Anthony P. Sgro, complains and alleges against Defendant, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1 Plaintiff, LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION METRO, INC. (Plaintiff” or “PPA”), is a non-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of Nevada and doing business in Clark County, Nevada. 2. Defendant, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (“Defendant” or “LVMPD”), is an agency of the State of Nevada. 3. Doe Defendants I through 10 are persons, and Roe Defendants 1 through 10 are Page 1 of 56 7 g corporations or business entities, whose true names and identities and eapacities are unknown to Pi at this time. The Roe Defendants may be corporations, associations, partnerships, subsidiaries, holding companies, owners, predecessor or successor entities, joint ventures, parent corporations, or related business entities of the named Defendants, or any of them, or any other Roe Defendant. The Doe Defendants are individual persons acting on behalf of or in concert with, or at the direction of any of the named Defendants or Roe Defendants or who may be officers, directors, employees, or agents of any of the named or Roe Defendants. Plaintiff will ask leave of this Court to insert the true names and capacities for such Doe and Roe Defendants when discovered to substitute those true names as defendants to these proceedings for the Doe and Roe Defendants. 4. This action arises under the Nevada Revised Statutes ("RS"), the Nevada State Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution, specifically the equal protection and substantive due process clauses, Nevada District Courts have general jurisdiction in civil matters. Nev. Const. Art 6, § 6. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5, Plaintiff ve-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 6. LYVMPD employs police officers to furnish essential public services vital to the health, safety, and welfare of the population of the City of Las Vegas and Clark County. 7. On July 1, 2016, PPA and LVMPD entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “Agreement”), which remains effective through June 30, 2019. 8. Pursuant to NRS 289.020(3), “{iJf a peace officer refuuses to comply with a request by a superior officer to cooperate with the peace officer’s own or any other law enforcement agency in a criminal investigation, the agency may charge the peace officer with insubordination.” (emphasis added). 9, The cumulative effect of the NRS provisions and LVMPD policy is that an officer may be charged with insubordination for declining to cooperate and give a compelled statement even though the officer is provided no immunity from future prosecution based on those statements. Page 2 of 510. LVMPD has begun to disguise plainly administrative investigations as criminal investigations in order to utilize NRS 289.090 to circumvent the statutory protections provided to officers elsewhere in NRS 289. 11, On October 7, 2016, three LVMPD officers, who are also PPA members, were called to give statements by criminal investigators within the LVMPD in response to an incident that occurred at a local bar involving a suspect and the off-duty police officers. Investigators told each officer they could not have a PPA representative present, and that they had no choice but to give a statement, The LVMPD investigators told the officers that refusing to give a statement would result in discipline or termination, At no point were the officers provided Garrity immunity for their statements. At least one of the officers gave a statement to investigators, under threat of discipline or termination, without being provided Garrity immunity. 12, The Nevada State Constitution provides that “[nJo person shall be .. . compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself." Nev. Const. Art. 1, § 8(1). 13, The United States Constitution similarly provides “[nJo person shall be . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. 14, In Garrity v, State of Nol, 385 .S. 493, 500 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that the practice of an employer compelling an employee to give statements or else face punitive action is unconstitutional unless the employee is granted immunity from the use of those statements against him or her in any future criminal proceeding 15. In 1968 the Supreme Court decided Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S, 273, 278-79 (1968), holding that a police officer could not have his or her employment terminated for refusing (o give a compelled statement when the immunity from the use of those statements in future criminal proceedings required by Garrity was not provided to the officer. 16. Due to the language of NRS 289.020(3), LVMPD compels officers to make statements under the guise of a criminal investigation, which removes the immunity against the future use of incriminating statements in criminal proceedings found in NRS 289.060(4). Thus, PPA members are placed in situations where the LVMPD forces them to either incriminate Page 3 of 5themselves with no Garrity immunity or invoke their constitutional right against self- inerimination and be charged with insubordination and terminated by the LVMPD. Such a situation is precisely what the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional in Garrity and Gardner FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief NRS 30.030) 17, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 18, A controversy exists between PPA and LVMPD as to the nature and extent of their relationship and corresponding obligations, duties, and responsibilities toward one another. 19, All of the rights and obligations of the parties hereto arose out of what is essentially one series of transactions, happenings, or events, all of which can be settled and determined in a judgment in this one action. 20. A declaration of rights, duties, and responsibilities, and obligations between PPA and LVMPD regarding the constitutionality of NRS 289.020(3) is a justiciable controversy of adverse legal interest, which is ripe for review and declaration by this Court. 21, PPA requests that this Court declare that LVMPD be prohibited from compelling statements under NRS 289.020(3) because it violates PPA members’ constitutional rights to refuse to give self-incriminating statements, due process, and equal protection, 22. PPA has been forced to retain legal counsel to prosecute these claims, and it is therefore entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this matter. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunetive Relief) 23, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 24, Pursuant to NRS 33.010, an injunction may be granted when it shall appear by the Complaint that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief or any part thereof consists of restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited periad or perpetually. 25. Beginning on or about October 7, 2016, and continued to the present time, Page 4 of 5Defendant wrongfully and unlawfully took advantage of the criminal investigation carve-out in NRS 289,090 and the facially unconstitutional provisions of NRS 289.020(3) that allow for officers Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be violated. 26. PPA has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries as an award of monetary damages would not provide an adequate remedy as the harm that will be suffered by PPA cannot be readily calculated, as it includes diminishment of PPA members’ fundamental rights to work and due process, 27. As adirect result of the actions of LVMPD, PPA has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and court costs associated with this matter WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 1. For declaratory relief; 2. For injunctive relief; 3, For an award to Plaintiff for its costs and attomeys’ fees; and 4, For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated this _/ ‘D day of February, 2017. The Law Offices of Anthony P. Sgro KEITH. WILLIAMS, ESQ. Nevada State Bat No. 10796 720 8. Seventh Street, 3° Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 385-9595 tsgro@psrlegal.com kavilliams@psrlegal.com ‘Attorneys for Plaintiff Floor Page 5 of 5