Las Vegas Review-Journal

October 18, 2026 - 9:00 pm

The Nevada Supreme Court last week wisely declined to rewrite open records statutes from the bench. That’s a victory for state taxpayers in defense of transparency and accountability. Will legislators also resist the temptation?

On Thursday, the justices unanimously concluded that there is no automatic exemption in state public records law for documents related to an active police investigation. The case involved a 2023 Reno-area traffic stop in which the female driver argued that an officer behaved inappropriately. She later sought body-cam footage and documents involving the incident from the Reno and Sparks police departments — the latter had taken over the probe. Both agencies denied the request, citing the fact that the investigation remained ongoing.

To the dismay of Sparks officials, a Washoe County judge ordered the release of some documents that directly involved the driver, with redactions. The city appealed to the high court, where its attorneys asked the justices to create a legal standard reflecting that information regarding active criminal cases may be kept confidential.

The justices ruled that the lower court erred, but they resisted Sparks’ push to have them legislate from the bench. A footnote in last week’s decision notes that Sparks offered “no compelling reasons for what would effectively rewrite” the court’s jurisprudence on the Nevada Public Records Act. Of equal importance, the ruling noted that it is the job of the Legislature, not the judiciary, to create any explicit exemptions to the statute.

Indeed, the city of Sparks argument was entirely inconsistent with the concept of open government. Using an expansive view of what can be considered an “open” investigation, law enforcement officials would have been free to keep secret any document or footage of virtually any inquest for indefinite amounts of time. The idea that the interests of law enforcement always outweigh the public’s right to know is a recipe for creating suspicion and shielding malfeasance rather than promoting accountability.

Yes, when determining whether documents should be released, courts may consider various factors, including whether an active police investigation may be compromised. But as with other public records, the default setting should be transparency, with secrecy the exception — not the other way around.

It’s worth noting that the Metropolitan Police Department and the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas embraced the position that Sparks articulated at the Supreme Court. Don’t be surprised if defenders of operating in the shadows now take their fight to Carson City and lobby lawmakers next year to water down state law to provide law enforcement probes a blanket exemption from the open records statute. Lawmakers truly acting in the public interest will assign any such legislation to the circular file.