Prior restraint
Local judge oversteps his bounds
Nevadans elect their judges, but every few years a proposal arises to abandon that approach for an appointment process. Supporters of the latter argue that it would minimize the politics involved and breed a more grounded, independent judiciary. Maybe, maybe not.
But there are also myriad reasons to defend the current system, not the least of which is the accountability inherent in the electoral system. Allowing voters to hold judges responsible for their decisions on the bench provides a vital check on judicial power.
Take Clark County District Judge Richard Scotti, who was elected in 2014.
On Friday, Judge Scotti ruled that the autopsy report of Las Vegas police officer Charleston Hartfield, who was killed in the Oct. 1 Strip massacre, was not a public document. The case was brought by Mr. Hartfield’s widow. Judge Scotti ruled that privacy concerns should prevail. The decision is highly questionable, given that Nevada statutes don’t exempt such documents from the state public records law.
In addition, the ruling contradicts another local judge’s recent conclusion in a separate case that autopsy reports must be available for scrutiny in service to the vital concept of government transparency. Mr. Hartfield’s autopsy had been released in the wake of that decision.
But Judge Scotti went even further than simply issuing a dubious finding in a public records case. He also ordered the Review-journal and The Associated Press to destroy their copies of the coroner’s findings regarding Mr. Hartfield and to refrain from reporting further details on the results. He then suggested that an official with the coroner’s office be allowed to rummage through the RJ or AP files in search of the document in question.
Judge Scotti attended the well-regarded Hastings College of Law at UC-SAN Francisco. Did he snore through classes on basic constitutional law? Setting aside the debate over whether the right to privacy trumps the public’s right to know when it comes to autopsy results, the judge’s orders are patently outrageous.
Is Judge Scotti wholly unfamiliar with the First Amendment and the doctrine of prior restraint? A judiciary that dictates what a publication may or may not disseminate — barring legitimate national security issues — has disemboweled the concept of press freedom and embraced censorship as a tool of state oppression.
Judge Scotti’s decision is unconstitutional on its face. The Review-journal has launched an expedited appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Yes, the newspaper has an obvious self-interest here. But the judge’s actions transcend the issue of open records and raise important questions regarding freedom of expression in a democratic republic.
Judge Scotti let his sympathies overwhelm his legal judgment, leading him to ignore state law, long-established precedent and the Bill of Rights. That’s something Clark County voters who value the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment should remember if the judge seeks re-election come 2020.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 that, like most of you, I have met on more than a few occasions. He is a most entertaining man who often serves as a spokesman for our town. He would describe himself as the happiest mayor anywhere. Republican or Democrat, we all have to say we kind of like the man. You do remember he defended murderers and criminals, don’t you?
Yea, Steve Wynn is probably guilty of a few indiscretions in his life. He most likely even got a parking ticket along the way. But, as a community, we had better ship a few thousand tons of stones to Vegas so that those of us without sin can cast the first stone. deceptions that they’ve been told for decades.
Social Security is statutory law, not a constitutional right. Just as Congress created Social Security, it could just as easily dismantle it. It is not insurance, an investment or a pension; it is a payroll tax-based welfare payment system that transfers money from the working class to the retired class.
Due to government theft of the Social Security Trust Fund, there is no longer any money set aside. All the money ever collected has been spent for other purposes, and all that is left is a public debt. The only way to pay back that debt is to tax us again to replace the taxes we’ve already paid. Chew on that for a while.