Attorneys for the Las Vegas Metro Police Department and for Jose “Chille” DeCastro filed supplemental briefs on Friday to support their cases for and against a summary judgment in the case.
DeCastro’s lawyer, Michael Mee, essentially drew upon DeCastro’s recent victory in an appeals court that overturned his sentence for obstructing an officer and interfering in a traffic stop, crimes which DeCastro served nearly four months in the Clarke County Detention Center while awaiting his appeal.
Mee hit on the point that the appeals court found that arresting officer ‘Brandan Borque did not have probable cause and violated DeCastro’s first amendment right to record when he arrested DeCastro in March of 2023.
The attorney stuck to Las Vegas revised codes, which stated that the statute which was applied to DeCastro for his arrest only covers “fighting words” and physical conduct that would hinder, delay or obstruct a public officer from the performance of their duties, which Mee claims DeCastro did not do.
Attorney Mee argued that the defense was not entitled to a summary judgment as there is a genuine dispute to material acts in the case as there is an outstanding excessive force claim (despite no evidence presented by Mee to show excessive force) and significant damage to DeCastro Ulnar nerve and testicles based on treatment of DeCastro by the LVMPD officers.
Craig R. Anderson, representing the LVMPD, points out that none of defendants were involved in DeCastro’s appeal nor were given the opportunity to challenge DeCastro’s claims in the appeal, therefore the broad acceptance of the State court’s decision would be objectionable.
He also noted that the Wilson case, which was used in the verdict by the appeals court, was not widely established law at the time of the arrest of DeCastro as it wasn’t decided until nearly a year after DeCastro’s arrest.
Judge Andrew Gordon, who is overseeing the case, also found probable cause for the arrest last fall in his own review of the case despite the later ruling by the appeals court. He also dismissed claims by DeCastro with prejudice of unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest/imprisonment, invasion of privacy and negligence-based search and seizure.
DeCastro’s claims of First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and negligence-based claim for biased policing were dismissed without prejudice in the same ruling, with very specific leave to amend, leaving only his claims of excessive force and supervisor liability as the key charges left in the case.
DeCastro’s second amended complaint ignored Judge Gordon’s ruling, reinstating all of the previously dismissed charges against the LVMPD and ignoring Gordon’s specifics for refiling the charges that were dismissed without prejudice. This act by DeCastro led to the defendants filing a motion for a dismissal of DeCastro’s second amended complaint or motion for Summary Judgment based on DeCastro’s actions.
