Craig R. Anderson, working on behalf of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, filed a second motion for summary judgment on Friday in his defense of the LVMPD against an on-going lawsuit by DeleteLawZ Jose “Chille” DeCastro.
The motion was filed to meet the October 4 deadline on Friday and essentially asking to throw out DeCastro’s State Law False Arrest and Unlawful Search and Seizure claims along with his invasion of privacy claim.
A previous motion for summary judgment threw out DeCastro’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 false arrest and illegal search and seizure claims but allowed the same claims to move forward under Nevada State law.
For those two claims, the judge allowed Anderson to file the second motion for summary judgment, where he explained that the officers involved in DeCastro’s March 2023 arrest are immune from liability as to alleged violations of the Nevada Constitution as the decision to arrest is a discretionary function under Nevada law.
Breaking it down, Anderson stated that the ability to arrest is part of an officer’s role as a police officer and as a part of the arrest the police are allowed to legally search those that they are arresting. Even if DeCastro’s charges were ultimately overturned by an appeals court, officers still have the discretion to arrest under Nevada State law and can’t be punished for doing their jobs.
Anderson made a similar claim in the as to DeCastro’s invasion of privacy claim. He argues that searching DeCastro is an action that Nevada state law gives officers the ability to do without being punished for it down the line. He also states that DeCastro’s aggressive behavior further warranted his arrest.
Despite the outcome of the motion for summary judgment, this lawsuit is still going to go forward on the following grounds:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force and excessive force claim against Officers Bourque and Sandoval based upon Nevada Constitution.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment “chilling” claim and Free speech violation claim, and a claim based upon Nevada Constitution against Officer Borque and Sgt. Torrey.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim, and free speech violation claim based upon Nevada Constitution against Officer Borque and Sgt. Torrey.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 selective enforcement and inequal police action claim against Ofc. Bourque and Sgt. Torrey as to theory of selective arrest based upon exercise of constitutional rights.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 selective enforcement and inequal police action claim for Ofc. Bourque and Sgt. Torrey as to theory of selective arrest based upon exercise of constitutional rights.
- Nevada state law battery claim as to Ofc. Bourque and Ofc. Sandoval.
As Expected, the motion does not reference DeCastro’s recent claims that Officer Borque did not injure him when he was searching DeCastro’s groin area. His new story is that Officer Sandoval was able to “duck under” all the body cams looking at DeCastro and perform a closed first punch to DeCastro’s groin without DeCastro reacting or the action being recorded.
His apparent “clearing” of Borque of that charge will certainly be handled before the case either goes to trial or settlement talks.
DeCastro’s lawyer, Michael Mee, has yet to respond to the LVMPD filing.
