The Nevada Supreme Court is poised to rule on a fundamental question: who decides if a repeat offender is too dangerous for release on electronic monitoring. This legal challenge, initiated by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), pits law enforcement against the judiciary regarding supervision protocols for defendants like Joshua Sanchez-Lopez, 36, who remains held at the Clark County Detention Center.
How We Got Here
The dispute began in January after Sanchez-Lopez, a convicted felon with 35 prior arrests including drug and involuntary manslaughter convictions, was arrested for grand larceny of a motor vehicle. Las Vegas Justice Court Judge Eric Goodman subsequently ordered his release on electronic monitoring, provided he posted $25,000 bail, according to reports by KLAS.
However, Metro supervisors declined to enroll Sanchez-Lopez in their electronic supervision program. The department cited his extensive criminal record, past failures to appear in court, previous bench warrants, and multiple violations while on community supervision. LVMPD Assistant General Counsel Mike Dickerson told KLAS, “We have to take a look at that and say, ‘Is this somebody who our electronic supervision program can monitor safely in the community?’ This is an issue of public safety.”
Further details from Metro’s petition to the Supreme Court highlight specific concerns. In a 2020 incident, Sanchez-Lopez allegedly fled officers while armed. Court documents referenced by KLAS also reveal he later posted a Snapchat image of his ankle monitor, stating he “got chased again,” indicating a disregard for electronic tagging conditions.
Sheriff Kevin McMahill’s statement within Metro’s petition asserted that his designated supervisors determined Sanchez-Lopez posed an “unreasonable risk to public safety” if placed on high-level electronic monitoring. The sheriff argued Sanchez-Lopez’s “unsuccessful prior history” and “multiple parole violations” demonstrated “a clear and repeated unwillingness to comply with even the most basic conditions of electronic supervision.”
What Changed
Judge Goodman responded to Metro’s refusal by ordering the department to comply with his release order. He warned of potential contempt sanctions if they did not.
This judicial directive prompted Metro to escalate the matter. On March 9, Metro attorneys filed a petition with the Nevada Supreme Court, requesting a writ of prohibition against the Las Vegas Justice Court. The filing argues that state law grants the sheriff the authority to assess whether a defendant can safely participate in the department’s electronic monitoring program, which supervises about 450 individuals using GPS ankle bracelets.
“The safety of our officers is paramount,” Dickerson told KLAS, adding, “Sheriff McMahill will not violate the law to appease the Las Vegas Justice Court and let out people who he deems to be dangerous.”
P. David Westbrook, Sanchez-Lopez’s public defender, countered Metro’s legal interpretation in a statement to KLAS. “Metro’s argument is flat wrong,” Westbrook said. “It is the job of the elected judge to decide whether someone charged with a crime should be released and under what conditions.”
What Comes Next
The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision will establish a precedent, clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries between judicial orders and law enforcement’s operational control over offender tracking programs. This ruling will define whether judges can compel police departments to accept defendants into electronic monitoring against their safety assessments. The outcome will shape how community supervision programs in Nevada manage repeat offenders and the balance of power in release decisions, impacting public safety and criminal justice accountability.
Source: Las Vegas sheriff rejects judge’s order to release 35-arrest repeat offender
