Opinion
CASE NO. 2:08-cv-00822-JCM-PAL
02-08-2013
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA, DOES 1 - 8 and DOES A - S, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Attorney General of the State of Nevada; GERALD HAFEN, Director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety; BERNARD W. CURTIS, Chief, Parole and Probation Division of the Nevada Department of Public Safety; CAPTAIN P.K. O'NEILL, Chief, Records and Technology Division of the Nevada Department of Public Safety; MICHAEL HALEY, Sheriff of the Washoe County Sheriff's Office; MICHAEL POEHLMAN, Chief of the Reno Police Department; RICHARD A. GAMMICK, District Attorney of Washoe County; DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, Sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; JOSEPH FORTI, Chief of the North Las Vegas Police Department; DAVID ROGER, District Attorney of Clark County; CHIEF RICHARD PERKINS, Henderson Police Department, Defendants.
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO Attorney General KIMBERLY A. BUCHANAN Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants, CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; GERALD HAFEN; BERNARD W. CURTIS and CAPTAIN P.K. O'NEILL
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Attorney General
KIMBERLY A. BUCHANAN
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants,
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; GERALD HAFEN;
BERNARD W. CURTIS and CAPTAIN P.K. O'NEILL
ORDER CLARIFYING INJUNCTION AS
TO SENATE BILL 471
1. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and has personal jurisdiction over defendants.
2. On July 24, 2008, (Doc. 51), a stipulation was entered which dismissed defendants Douglas Gillespie, sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Joseph Forti, chief of the North Las Vegas Police Department, David Roger, District Attorney of Clark County and Richard Perkins, chief of the Henderson Police Department (collectively "Clark County law enforcement defendants") on the agreement that they would be bound by the decision in this case as litigated by plaintiffs and state defendants. Accordingly, Clark County law enforcement defendants are bound by the terms of this order.
3. On October 7, 2008, (Doc. 77), this court entered a preliminary injunction permanently enjoining the enforcement of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 579 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 471.
A copy of Senate Bill 471 is attached hereto as Exhibit A for ease of reference.
4. On February 10, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on the appeal of the permanent injunction and reversed and remanded this matter.
5. The Ninth Circuit decision reversed the district court's findings as to A.B, 579 and accordingly the injunction as to A.B. 579 is dissolved.
6. The Ninth Circuit made it clear that the only provisions of S.B. 471 properly at issue in this action are the specific sections amending movement and residency restrictions. The Ninth Circuit also indicated the injunction was not reflective of the district court's findings. Thus the scope of the October 7, 2008 injunction against S.B, 471 was overly broad as drafted and this order hereby clarifies the proper scope of the injunction against S.B. 471 as it was entered on October 7, 2008.
See ACLU v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, fn 3 (2012).
7. The State of Nevada agrees not to enforce the following movement and residency statutes for convictions that occurred prior to the date that this order is entered:
a. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 2 amending NRS 176A.410(1)(m).
b. S.B, 471 (2007), Sec. 2 amending NRS 176A.410(2)(a).
c. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 8 amending NRS 213.1243(3).
d. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 8 amending NRS 213.1243(4)(a).
e. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 9 amending NRS 213.1245(1)(l).
f. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 10 amending NRS 213.1255(1)(a).
The above listed provisions, a-f, may be enforced as to convictions that occur on or after the date that this order is entered.
8. All other sections or sub-sections contained in S.B, 471 (2007), other than those specified in 6 a-f above, are subject to the enacting provisions set forth in S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 16 and Sec. 17, and were in full force and effect as of the effective date of the bill. These include the following substantive provisions.
Numerical statutory changes are not addressed.
--------
a. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 1 amending NRS 176.0926 (1)(b)(2)-(4).
b. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec. 2 amending NRS 176A.410(1), (1)(b)(1)-(2), (1)(q), (2)(b)-(c), (3)(a)-(c), (4), (6) and (7).
c. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 3 amending NRS 179D.230(4).
d. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 4 amending NRS 179D.240(6)(a)-(d), (7), and (10).
e. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 5 amending NRS 179D.450 (4).
f. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 6 amending NRS 179D.460 (6)(a)-(d), (7) and (10).
g. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 7 amending NRS 200.366(3)(b)-(c).
h. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 8 amending NRS 213.1243 (4)(b)-(c), (5)(a)-(c), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10).
i. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 9 amending NRS 213.1245(1)(a)(1)-(2).
j. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 10 amending NRS 213.1255 (1)(b)-(c), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).
k. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 10.5 amending NRS 213.130(3), (9), (10) and (11).
l. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 11 amending Section 26 of A.B. 579.
m. S.B. 471 (2007), Sec 12 amending Section 27 of A.B. 579.
n. The fiscal and enacting provisions set forth in Sec. 14-17 shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise provided for herein.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Respectfully submitted by: CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Attorney General
______________________
KIMBERLY A. BUCHANAN
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Nevada Bar No.: 5891
Office of the Attorney General
Public Safety Division
555 East Washington Avenue, #3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendants
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO;
GERALD HAFEN; BERNARD W. CURTIS
and CAPTAIN P.K. O'NEILL