Motion Seeks Ban on Controversial Las Vegas Police Protest Tactics

Table of Contents

Legal Challenge to Las Vegas Police Tactics

A group of attorneys has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to limit how the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) enforces dispersal orders and uses pepper balls during protests. This move is part of a lawsuit initiated by protester Emanuel Beltran against the Metropolitan Police Department.

The motion argues that the LVMPD exceeded its lawful authority during recent protests and violated the First Amendment rights of demonstrators. The request aims to prevent the department from enforcing dispersal orders outside designated zones once protesters comply with them. It also seeks to stop police from firing pepper balls at individuals who are not committing serious crimes or posing a threat to others.

The motion was submitted in state court on Tuesday by attorneys Jared Richards, Stephen Stubbs, and Dustin Birch. According to Stubbs, the goal is to ensure that the LVMPD adheres to legal restrictions already set by courts.

Protests and Arrests in Las Vegas

On June 11 and June 14, thousands of protesters gathered in downtown Las Vegas to oppose President Donald Trump’s administration and its policies targeting illegal immigration. Over 100 people were arrested during these demonstrations, but the city chose not to prosecute most of those charged, a decision that reportedly upset the Metropolitan Police Department.

While police have claimed some protesters acted violently, legal experts and advocates have criticized the conduct of officers. They argue that some arrests appeared retaliatory, particularly when protesters were simply exercising their right to protest.

A Case of "Simply Asking Questions"

Body camera footage linked to the court papers shows an incident where a man was taken into custody after asking questions on a public sidewalk. The exchange between the man and an officer highlights concerns about the use of force and the interpretation of dispersal orders.

In the video, the man asks, “Why can’t I go that way?” referring to crossing Las Vegas Boulevard at Fremont. An officer responds, “Because I said so,” and tells him to leave. The conversation escalates as the officer uses profanity, leading to the man being arrested. According to the filing, Undersheriff Andrew Walsh ordered the arrest, despite the man not engaging in any violent behavior.

Dispersal Orders and Their Enforcement

The motion claims that many protesters did not hear the dispersal order given at Las Vegas Boulevard and Bridger Avenue. While Metro has stated that multiple dispersal orders were communicated via loudspeaker, the filing suggests that most demonstrators could not hear them.

Police then pursued smaller groups of protesters who continued their demonstration in various locations throughout downtown, even though they avoided the dispersal zone. The lawyers allege that some protesters were arrested for participating in the demonstration under the guise of violating a dispersal order.

A note in Metro’s computer-aided dispatch log at 11:36 p.m. on June 11 reportedly stated, “IF THEY HAVE SIGNS THEY CAN BE ARRESTED.” According to the motion, Beltran was not present at the location where the dispersal order was read, and no officer informed him of the order.

Use of Pepper Balls

The motion also criticizes the use of pepper balls by police during the protests. Beltran’s suit accuses Officer Mark Eshe of firing 157 pepper balls at protesters in just under 90 minutes on June 11. The ACLU of Nevada previously disclosed that officers deployed 750 pepper ball rounds during the June 11 and June 14 protests.

According to Beltran’s lawsuit, Eshe fired at him 13 times, hitting him in the legs with three pepper balls. The suit also claims that Eshe targeted a woman crossing the street, a man waving a flag in an intersection, and a group of protesters holding signs.

The motion argues that the LVMPD’s refusal to follow legal precedents and the use of pepper balls and tear gas on non-threatening individuals increases the need for injunctive relief early in the litigation.

Upcoming Hearing

District Judge Tara Clark Newberry is scheduled to hear the motion on February 4. The case continues to draw attention as it raises important questions about the balance between law enforcement actions and the protection of constitutional rights during public protests.