LAS VEGAS — A dispute between the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and a local judge over the release of a repeat offender with 35 prior arrests is headed to the Nevada Supreme Court, raising questions about who decides whether a defendant is too dangerous to be released on electronic monitoring.
The case centers on Joshua Sanchez-Lopez, 36, a convicted felon whose criminal history includes dozens of arrests and prior prison time for drug and involuntary manslaughter convictions, according to records cited by KLAS.
Las Vegas Justice Court Judge Eric Goodman ordered Sanchez-Lopez released on electronic monitoring if he posted $25,000 bail after his January arrest on a charge of grand larceny of a motor vehicle, KLAS reported.
But Metro declined to release him into the program, citing prior bench warrants, failures to appear in court and past violations of the department’s monitoring program.
“We have to take a look at that and say, ‘Is this somebody who our electronic supervision program can monitor safely in the community?’” Mike Dickerson, LVMPD assistant general counsel, told KLAS. “This is an issue of public safety.”
After Metro refused to release Sanchez-Lopez from the Clark County Detention Center, Goodman ordered the department to comply and warned it could face contempt sanctions if it did not, according to KLAS.
In response, Metro attorneys filed a petition with the Nevada Supreme Court on March 9, seeking a writ of prohibition against the Las Vegas Justice Court.
In the department’s petition, Sheriff Kevin McMahill stated that supervisors determined Sanchez-Lopez posed a serious risk if released on electronic monitoring:
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, including Sanchez-Lopez’s unsuccessful prior history in the Program and his multiple parole violations, ATI supervisors as my designees determined that Sanchez-Lopez poses an unreasonable risk to public safety if placed on High Level Electronic Monitoring. Sanchez-Lopez’s prior participation in the Program demonstrates a clear and repeated unwillingness to comply with even the most basic conditions of electronic supervision, and ATI supervisors could not reasonably conclude that High Level Electronic Monitoring would mitigate the foreseeable risk to public safety or to law enforcement personnel tasked with supervising Sanchez-Lopez.”
The department argues state law gives the sheriff authority to determine whether a defendant can safely participate in the electronic supervision program.
“The safety of our officers is paramount,” Dickerson told KLAS. “The safety of the public is key, and the key here is Sheriff McMahill will not violate the law to appease the Las Vegas Justice Court and let out people who he deems to be dangerous. We have a system that’s set up so people can get out of jail quickly, and sometimes, there just needs to be a little bit more thought given to it because lives are on the line.”
Sanchez-Lopez’s public defender, P. David Westbrook, disputed that interpretation.
“Metro’s argument is flat wrong,” Westbrook said in a statement to KLAS. “It is the job of the elected judge to decide whether someone charged with a crime should be released and under what conditions.”
Criminal history cited in dispute
Sanchez-Lopez’s criminal record includes 35 arrests, according to Metro.
In its filing, the department cited a 2020 arrest in which Sanchez-Lopez allegedly ran from officers while armed with a gun, according to court documents referenced by KLAS. After the incident, he later posted on Snapchat showing his ankle monitor and wrote that he “got chased again,” the documents state.
Metro officials say cases like this highlight the importance of allowing the department to evaluate whether defendants can be safely monitored in the community.
Metro’s electronic monitoring program allows some defendants to remain out of jail while wearing a GPS ankle bracelet, with different levels of supervision depending on the case. About 450 defendants participate in the program at any given time, according to the department. In Sanchez-Lopez’s case, the judge ordered high-level monitoring, essentially house arrest.
Case now before Nevada Supreme Court
Goodman later released Sanchez-Lopez through the court’s pretrial release program, which includes another form of GPS monitoring.
The Nevada Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on Metro’s petition.
Sanchez-Lopez’s case is expected to return to Goodman’s courtroom March 19.
Separate ruling backs Metro’s authority
The legal fight comes as a Clark County district judge recently sided with Metro in a similar dispute over the department’s electronic monitoring program.
In a March 13 order, District Court Judge Erika Mendoza ruled that LVMPD — and the sheriff — have the authority to determine whether a defendant may participate in the department’s monitoring program, according to KLAS.
That case involved Matthew Cordero-Davila, who pleaded guilty in January to coercion constituting domestic violence with physical force or the threat of force.
Metro declined to release him on an ankle monitor, citing what the department described in court documents as “an unreasonable risk to public safety.”
Mendoza later ordered Cordero-Davila released on house arrest, but determined Metro had the authority to decide whether defendants could participate in its electronic supervision program and wrote there was “no information to suggest LVMPD’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable,” KLAS reported.
