Law enforcement wants open investigation records kept secret. What does that mean for Nevadans?
Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court is considering whether records tied to open criminal investigations can be withheld from the public as a categorical matter. The dispute began after a Reno traffic stop in which an officer is accused of copying a woman’s intimate photos from her phone. The woman’s lawyer sought records, was rebuffed, sued and the matter reached the state’s high court.
Several law enforcement agencies, city attorneys and the Nevada Attorney General have asked the court to adopt a bright-line rule that investigative files in active cases are confidential. They say nondisclosure protects victims’ privacy and defendants’ rights to a fair trial. Media organisations, First Amendment experts, the ACLU of Nevada and survivor advocates warn such a rule would drastically curtail transparency, enable indefinite withholding of records and hamper public oversight of police conduct.
The immediate factual backdrop involves allegations against former Reno officer Tyler Baehr, who resigned and faces federal charges. A district judge ordered limited, redacted disclosure to the alleged victim; Sparks and other agencies are asking the Supreme Court to overturn that approach and endorse broader secrecy.
Key Points
- The case stems from allegations an officer copied intimate images from a woman’s phone during a traffic stop.
- Law enforcement and the attorney general seek a court ruling making records from open investigations confidential as a matter of law.
- Proponents say confidentiality guards victim privacy and the integrity of prosecutions and juries.
- Media groups, First Amendment lawyers and transparency advocates warn a blanket exemption would erode oversight and make misconduct harder to detect.
- Advocates for survivors argue transparency can protect victims and prevent agencies from using privacy as a pretext to hide wrongdoing.
- The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision could reshape how public-records law balances openness, privacy and fair-trial concerns in the state.
Why should I read this?
Plain and simple: this could change whether you ever get to see what police do. If the court sides with secrecy, agencies might keep files closed for ages and hide misconduct behind “active investigation” claims. We’ve done the reading so you don’t have to—this affects accountability, victims’ rights and your right to know how government works.