An employee of the City of Las Vegas lodged a complaint against Deputy City Marshal Sergeant John Arvanites, prompting an internal investigation. Deputy City Marshal Sergeant Jonathon Burdette was identified as a witness in the same investigation. Due to the nature of the allegations – harassment and retaliation – the City referred the matter to its Human Resources Department and assigned a human resources analyst, Lori Petsco, to lead the investigation. Both Arvanites and Burdette were interviewed by Petsco. The Las Vegas Police Protective Association (LVPPA), Arvanites, and Burdette then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the City from using civilian employees to lead such investigations. They argued that NRS 289.060(2)(d) (of the Nevada Police Officer Bill of Rights (POBR)), explicitly requires that any interrogation or hearing in a disciplinary proceeding against a peace officer must be conducted by another peace officer of rank. The City countered that the statute’s use of the term “officer” was not limited to peace officers and that human resources personnel were better suited to handle harassment allegations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the LVPPA, and the City appealed.
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the decision.
The Court noted that while the statute does not define “officer,” the context and legislative history of the POBR (NRS 289) strongly suggest that the term refers to peace officers. The POBR was enacted in 1983, and the original version of the statute used “officer” and “peace officer” interchangeably. The Court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the statute’s purpose of providing procedural protections for peace officers, who face unique professional risks and responsibilities. The Court also pointed out that other provisions within POBR explicitly distinguish between “officers” and “employees,” further supporting the conclusion that “officer” in this context means a peace officer.
The Court rejected the City’s argument that “officer” could include non-peace-officer employees, noting that such an interpretation would render the statute’s reference to “rank” superfluous. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the POBR governs internal investigations, which are typically conducted within the law enforcement agency itself. The Court found it reasonable to conclude that an “internal” investigation of a peace officer would be led by another peace officer familiar with the standards and challenges of the profession. This interpretation, the Court noted, as it ensures that investigations are conducted by individuals with relevant expertise and understanding of the law enforcement context.
The Court acknowledged that nothing in the POBR prevents a peace officer leading an investigation from seeking assistance from human resources personnel or other specialists. However, the statute unequivocally requires that the investigation itself be led by a peace officer. Thus, the Court concluded that the City violated NRS 289.060(2)(d) by assigning a civilian employee to lead the investigation into Arvanites and Burdette.
City of Las Vegas v. Las Vegas Police Protective Ass’n, 561 P.3d 1059 (Nev. 2025).