REPORT

Introduction

Investigation into
Allegations of
Improper
Governmental Action
by Members of the Las
Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department

JohnAldrich,attorneyfortheLasVegasMetropolitanPoliceManagersandSupervisors
Association(PMSA),handdeliveredaletter,datedMarch13,2014,tothisOfficeina
meetingwithClarkCountyDistrictAttorneySteveWolfson,AssistantDistrictAttorney
ChristopherLalli,andmembersofthePoliceManagersandSupervisorsAssociation.This
letterwasarequest,onbehalfofthenLieutenantGawainGuedry,whohassince
retired,andSergeantLeonardLorusso,fortheDistrictAttorneysOfficetoconductan
investigationintoallegationsofimpropergovernmentalactionunderNRS289.110
concerninghowemployeesoftheLasVegasMetropolitanPoliceDepartment
(LVMPD)handledanassessmentknownastheSafetyandOperationalAviation
Review(SOAR).

Permitted Scope of an Investigation Under NRS 289.110

NevadaRevisedStatute289.110isthesolestatutethatgrantstheDistrictAttorneys
Officejurisdictiontoconductaninvestigationintoimpropergovernmentalaction.This
statuteprovidestheproceduresthisOfficemustfollow.Itbeginswiththefilingofa
reportbyapeaceofficerdisclosinginformationregardingimpropergovernmental
actionwiththedistrictattorney.NRS289.110(1).Then,thedistrictattorneymay
investigatethereportanddeterminewhetherimpropergovernmentalactiondidoccur.
NRS289.110(2).Uponthecompletionoftheinvestigation,ifthedistrictattorney
_______________________
Page 1 of 18 pages

determinesimpropergovernmentalactiondidoccur,hemayprosecutetheviolation.
NRS289.110(2)(a).Thedistrictattorneyshallnotifythepeaceofficerwhofiledthe
reportoftheresultsoftheinvestigation.NRS289.110(2)(b).Furthermore,thisstatute
statesthatthereisnothinginthesection[which]authorizesapersontodisclose
informationifthedisclosureisotherwiseprohibitedbylaw.NRS289.110(5).Finally,
thestatutedefinesimpropergovernmentalactionasanyactiontakenbyanofficeror
employeeofalawenforcementagency,whileintheperformanceoftheofficersor
employeesofficialdutieswhichisinviolationofanystatelaworregulation.NRS
289.110(6).

InthecourseofthisOfficesinvestigationintopossibleimpropergovernmentalaction,
wemustbemindfulofthestatuteoflimitationsfortheallegedactivity.PursuanttoNRS
171.085,thestatuteoflimitationsonthemajorityoffeloniesisthreeyears.UnderNRS
171.090,thestatuteoflimitationsforagrossmisdemeanoristwoyearsandfora
misdemeanoritisoneyear.

NevadaRevisedStatute289.110isdirectedtowardsaninvestigationagainstan
employee,nottheagencyitself.Thestatutorypurposeofthisinvestigationisnotto
delveintoadministrativematters,reviewpoliciesandproceduresofotheragencies,or
considerethicalormoralissues.Thisstatuteaddressesonlystatelawsandregulations,
notviolationsoffederallawsorregulationsorcompliancewithfederaladministrative
boards.Therefore,ingoingforwardwithourinvestigationandanalysis,thisOffices
jurisdictionandsubsequentinquiryunderNRS289.110isverynarrowandlimitedtothe
questionofwhetherviablestatecriminalchargesexistwhichcanbeprovenbeyonda
reasonabledoubtatajurytrial.

Mr.AldrichcitedinaletterdatedApril24,2014,thatNRS281.611(1),takesona
broaderdefinitionofimpropergovernmentalactiontoincludeabuseofauthorityora
specificdangertothepublichealthorsafety.However,pursuanttoNRSChapter281,
thisbroaddefinitionofimpropergovernmentalactionissolelyrestrictedtouseinNRS
281.611to281.671.Therefore,itisnotapplicableinananalysisunderNRS289.110.
Likewise,theotherstatutescitedunderNRS281arenotpunitiveandareintendedtobe
directoryandpreventative.NRS281.671.Consequently,noneofthesestatutesapply
inananalysisintoallegationsofimpropergovernmentalactionunderNRS289.110.

NevadaRevisedStatute289.110doesnotallowthisOfficetosuasponteinvestigatelaw
enforcementofficersforimpropergovernmentalaction.ItallowsthisOfficeto
investigateareportfiledbyapeaceofficer.NRS289.110(1)(2).Therefore,ouranalysis
turnstothereportofimpropergovernmentalactionfiledonbehalfofLt.Guedryand
Sgt.Lorusso.

_______________________
Page 2 of 18 pages

Allegations of Improper Governmental Action

A.

Report Filed Under NRS 289.110

TheinitialletterfiledunderNRS289.110requestinganinvestigationallegedthatthe
DepartmentsconductrelatingtotheSOARassessmentconstitutesimproper
governmentalactionasdetailedinNRS289.110(6).Itwasalsoallegedthatchanges
weremadetotheassessmentthatweresignificantandlivesareatstakeandany
softeningofthereportorminimizingofthereportsfindingsplaceofficersandcitizens
livesindanger.Attachedtotheletterwerevariousdocuments,includingtheSOAR
TeamsreportdatedJuly23,2013(SOARreport).TheSOARreportchronicledthe
historyofLVMPDsAirSupportUnit,includinganumberofaccidents,incidents,or
crasheswhichoccurredduringthat40yearperiod,informationfromtheirinterviews,
andtheirrecommendationsforchange.

ThisOfficereceivedaletterfromLieslFreedman,LVMPDsgeneralcounsel,dated
March18,2014,statingthattheSOARreportanditscontentsareconfidentialunderthe
DeliberativeProcessPrivilege.Itwasrequestedthatupontheconclusionofour
investigationthattheSOARreportbereturnedtoLVMPDsgeneralcounsel.

TheDistrictAttorneysOfficesentMr.AldrichaletterdatedApril2,2014,seeking
clarificationontheallegedimpropergovernmentalaction,includingtheidentityof
thosewhoLt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussowereallegingviolatedthelawandwhatlawthey
believewasviolated,andfeedbackonLVMPDsassertionthattheSOARreportwas
privilegedandconfidential.Mr.AldrichsentaresponseinaletterdatedApril24,2014,
statingthatitisnottheirdutytorespondtoourspecificrequestsandthatthe
Reportmakesclearthatthereareviolationsthathaveoccurred,butthathewould
providesomeadditionalanalysis.HewentontoclaimthattheSOARreportissimplynot
protectedundertheDeliberativeProcessPrivilegewithlittleanalysistosupportthat
assertion.

Astothespecificlawsheclaimedwereviolated,hestatedthattheSOARreporthad
beensignificantlymodified,withoutprovidinganyfurtheranalysisorfactualbasisto
supportthatclaim.Finally,heprovidedcitationstovariousstatutesthatheclaimed
wererelevanttoaninvestigationunderNRS289.110andthespecificcircumstancesof
thisrequest:NRS281.611(1),281.621,281.631,197.130,and281A.400.

ThisOfficeisalsoinreceiptofaletterdatedJune5,2014,sentbyMr.Aldrichrequesting
thatthisOfficetransferthisinvestigationtotheAttorneyGeneralsOfficeduetoan
appearanceofimproprietyforanallegedconflictofinterestbetweenthisOfficeand
LVMPD.NRS289.110,thestatutethatgrantsthisOfficejurisdictionoverthismatter,
specificallystatesthatthepeaceofficerdisclosinginformationregardingimproper
governmentalactionmayfileareportwiththeAttorneyGeneralonlyifthedistrict
_______________________
Page 3 of 18 pages

attorney[ofthecountyinwhichtheimpropergovernmentalactionoccurred]is
involvedintheimpropergovernmentalaction.NRS289.110(1)(b).Thisstatutedoes
notcallforrecusalduetoaconflictofinterest.Furthermore,thefactualbasisforthe
claimedconflictofinterestwasconclusiveandwouldnotwarrantrecusalofthisoffice.
Consequently,ourOfficecontinuedforward.ThomGover,ChiefofStaffoftheOfficeof
theAttorneyGeneral,hasconfirmedthathisofficehasreceivedthesamerequestfrom
Mr.Aldrich.

Uponreceivingandreviewingthematerialsprovided,thisOfficeconductedan
investigationandanalysisofthereportunderNRS289.110asrequested.Aspartofthis
investigation,thisOfficereachedouttoLVMPDregardingtheSOARreport,its
management,andtheultimateterminationoftheSOARTeamsassessment.We
conductedinterviewswithDeputyChiefKirkPrimas,DeputyChiefThomasRoberts,and
LieutenantJamesLaRochellerelatingtotheSOARTeamandthemanagementofthe
SOARreport.Additionally,Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussowereinterviewedtoclarifyand
supplementtheirallegations.OnAugust26,2014,thedayofhisinterview,Lt.Guedry
providedthisOfficewithanumberofadditionalmaterials,includingdocuments,emails,
audio,andvideothatwerequestedinApril.Baseduponareviewofthosenewly
furnishedmaterials,someitemsappeartobeconfidentialinformation.Wecontacted
PatrickJones,theAirSafetyInvestigatorfromtheNationalTransportationSafetyBoard,
whoisassignedtoinvestigatetheJuly2013accidentwhichleadtothedeathofSearch
andRescueOfficerDavidVanbuskirk.Furthermore,wereachedouttothemechanic
whoLt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussoclaimedwasthevictimofafelonycoercion.The
responsesreceivedandinformationobtainedwereconsideredintheconclusions
reachedinthisOfficesinvestigation.

B.
Specific Allegations of Improper Governmental Action

Intheinitiallettersrequestinganinvestigation,Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussoclaimedthat
theoverallhandlingoftheSOARTeam,itsassessmentandsubsequentreportroseto
thelevelofimpropergovernmentalaction.ThisclaimwasinvestigatedbythisOffice
andisdetailedbelow.DuringthecourseofthisOfficesinvestigation,tobest
understandthefactsandallegations,certaininterviewswereconducted.Inthe
interviewofLt.Guedry,hestatedhehadadditionalclaimstomakethatconstituted
impropergovernmentalaction.WhileLt.Guedrycouldnotspecifically,concisely,or
directlyarticulatetheclaimedstatelaworregulationthatwasviolated,whoviolatedit,
andthefactualbackgroundthatwouldsupportit,herecitedthefollowingclaimswith
varyingdegreesofparticularity.DuringSgt.Lorussosinterviewheclarifiedorexpanded
uponLt.Guedrysclaims,butinsomeinstances,gaveconflictingstatements.Their
additionalclaimsareasfollows:

1. Lt.GuedryandSgt.LorussoallegethatmembersofLVMPDsAirSupportUnit
coveredupnotonlythefactthatabladestrikeoccurredonNovember19,
2011,buttheresultingdamagetheyallegeoccurredfromthisbladestrike.To
_______________________
Page 4 of 18 pages

thisdate,however,neitherLt.GuedrynorSgt.Lorussohavebeenableto
identifyanypotentiallyviablestatelawsorregulationsviolatedinregardsthis
allegationofacoverup.Theyfurtherallege,however,fromthiseventthata
mechanicwasfeloniouslycoercedintoputtingthedamagedhelicopterbackin
service.Thisclaimwasinvestigatedbythisofficeasdetailedbelow.

2. Anyone,fromSheriffDouglasGillespieondownthechain,whohas
commentedaboutthisassessmenttothemediahasknowinglymadefalseand
misleadingstatementsinviolationofNRS197.130,whichstates[e]verypublic
officerwhoshallknowinglymakeanyfalseormisleadingstatementinany
officialreportorstatement,undercircumstancesnototherwiseprohibitedby
law,shallbeguiltyofagrossmisdemeanor.NeitherLt.GuedrynorSgt.Lorusso
wereabletoarticulatewhateachemployeesaidandhowitwasfalseor
misleading.Furthermore,neitherwereabletoarticulatehowastatementinthe
mediaqualifiedasanofficialreportorstatementunderNRS197.130.This
allegationisthereforemeritlessandcannotrisetothelevelofimproper
governmentalaction.1

3. AftertheSOARreportwasturnedintoLVMPDbyLt.Guedry,therewererumors
thatthereportwasleakedtothemedia,allegedlyinviolationofLVMPDpolicy
andcaselaw.Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussoclaimtoknowtheemployeeswho
allegedlyleakedthereport.Itistheirbelieftheseemployeesshouldhavebeen
disciplinedbutwereinsteadpromoted.Itistheirbeliefthisconstitutesbriberyin
violationofNRS197.020,onthepartoftheemployeewhopromotedthem,as
overthecourseoftheircareerandthroughretirementthepromotionwillresult
inadditionalpay.NeitherLt.GuedrynorSgt.Lorussostatedwhichemployeeof
LVMPDistheallegedsuspectofthebriberyallegation.NevadaRevisedStatute
197.020involvesanycompensationtoanofficerwiththeintenttoinfluencethe
officerwithrespecttoanactordecisionintheexerciseoftheofficerspowersor
functions.Thestatedallegationofpromotingsomeonewhentheyshouldhave
faceddisciplinaryactiondoesnotfallwithintheelementsofbribery.This
allegationisthereforemeritlessandcannotrisetothelevelofimproper
governmentalaction.

1
OnNovember18,2014,theDistrictAttorneysOfficereceivedaletterdatedNovember17,2014,from
JohnAldrichonbehalfofLt.GuedryandSgt.LorussodetailingtheirbeliefthatAssistantSheriffJoseph
LombardoviolatedNRS197.130forvariousstatementsmadeduringadebateonOctober19,2014.
AssistantSheriffLombardoparticipatedinthisdebateasacandidateforSheriffofClarkCounty.
Statementsmadebyacandidateduringtheircampaignforofficecaninnowaybeconstruedasa
statementsmadeinanofficialreportorstatement.Consequently,anyallegationthatAssistantSheriff
Lombardomadeafalseormisleadingstatementduringthisdebatedoesnotfallwithintheelementsof
NRS197.130.Therefore,theseallegationsaremeritlessanddonotwarrantfurtherinvestigationintothe
substanceofthestatements.

_______________________
Page 5 of 18 pages

4. Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussoallegethatthereisamassivecoverupthatis
happeningwiththeinvestigationintoOfficerVanbuskirksdeathandthat
LVMPDiscoveringuptherealtruthofwhathappenedonthenightofthe
accident.ItisworthnotingthattheNTSBandLVMPDhavenotcompletedwith
theirrespectiveinvestigationsintothisaccident.NeitherLt.GuedrynorSgt.
Lorussocouldarticulatewhatstatelawsorregulationscouldhavebeenviolated
inregardstothisclaim.Thisallegationisthereforemeritlessandcannotriseto
thelevelofimpropergovernmentalaction.However,theseareclaimsthatthis
Officedidnottakelightly.Asstated,wespoketoInvestigatorJonesfromthe
NTSBandhaveconfirmedthattheyareactivelyinvestigatingthisaccident.We
havenoreasontoquestionthevalidityofthisindependentfederal
administrativeorganizationandtheirabilitytoconductafullandaccurate
review.TheNTSBisthesoleauthorityastoaviationaccidents.Basedonour
conversationswiththeinvestigatorandtheinformationthisOfficeobtained,we
havenoreasontoquestionthatthetruthofthatnightisbeingactively
investigatedandwillbeuncovered.Additionally,wehaveconfirmedthatthe
NTSBhasreceivedacopyoftheSOARreport.InvestigatorJonesstatedheis
eagertoreviewtheinformationcontainedintheSOARreport,andwillhaveno
qualmsinreachingouttoanymemberoftheSOARTeamshouldheneedany
furtherinformationorassistanceintheirinvestigation.Wethereforeare
confidentthattheNTSBsinvestigationwillbeindependent,proper,and
thorough.

5. TheinformationuncoveredduringtheSOARTeamsinvestigationwasugly,
andLVMPDdidnotwanttoacceptit.LVMPDwantedthatinformationburied,
andsubsequentlycompletelyrewrotetheSOARreporttohidetheunwanted
orunflatteringinformationandtosoftenorminimizetheirfindingsinviolation
ofNRS197.130.Thisallegationwasinvestigatedandwillbediscussedaspartof
thisOfficesinvestigationintothedepartmentshandlingoftheSOARTeams
assessmentandsubsequentreport,asdetailedbelow.

6. Therewereclaimsbeyondaviolationofstatelaworregulations(i.e.violationsof
federallawsandregulations,violationsofregulationsoffederalagencies,or
violationsunderNRSChapter281that,perstatute,arenotpunitive)thatcannot,
bydefinitionunderNRS289.110risetothelevelofimpropergovernmental
action.Therefore,theseclaimsareoutsidethejurisdictionofthisOffices
investigation.

Investigation of Report of Improper Governmental Action

Afterareviewofalloftheinformationprovided,onlytwoallegationshadthepossibility
ofrisingtothelevelofaviolationofanystatelaworregulation:(1)thehandlingofthe
SOARTeamsassessmentandsubsequentreportand(2)thefactssurroundingthe
_______________________
Page 6 of 18 pages

allegationsofacoverupofabladestrikeonNovember19,2011.Uponcompletionof
thisOfficesinvestigationintotheseclaims,wehavedeterminedthattherearenoviable
violationsofstatelawsorregulationsandthereforetheirclaimsdonotrisetothelevel
ofimpropergovernmentalaction.

A.

November 19, 2011 Blade Strike

Duringthecourseoftheirinvestigation,theSOARTeamuncoveredanincidentthat
occurredinNovemberof2011thattheycallthecoverup.ItwasallegedbytheSOAR
Teamthattherewasabladestrikethatmaynothavebeenreportedproperlytothe
NTSB,thatinternalreportsalsoincludedacoverupofthedamagesustainedtothe
blade,andthatamechanicwasfeloniouslycoerced,inviolationofstatelaw,into
puttingthehelicopterbackinservicewhenitshouldhavebeendeemedunworthyto
fly.

ItdoesnotappearthereisanyquestionthatabladestrikedidoccuronNovember19,
2011.InternalLVMPDrecordsregardingthemaintenanceofthehelicopterinvolvedin
thebladestrikeshowentriesfromNovemberandDecemberof2011regardingablade
strike,thatabladewasdamaged,andthesubsequentinspectionandmaintenance
performedonit.

ThisincidentandpreviousissueswiththispilotcausedtensionintheSearchandRescue
Unit.AnanonymousreportofthebladestriketotheFAAresultedinaninvestigator
visitingthatUnitin2011;however,nothingcameofthatvisit.Atthetimeofthe
incident,neitherthebladestrikenorthedamagewasreportedtotheNTSB.Whenit
wasreportedtoDeputyChiefPrimasin2013thattheSOARTeamhadconcernsthatthe
incidentwasneverreportedtotheNTSB,DeputyChiefPrimasstatedinhisinterview
thathedirectlyandimmediatelyreportedittotheNTSB.NeitherLt.GuedrynorSgt.
Lorussocouldarticulatehowthisallegedcoverupofthedamagetothebladeviolated
anystatelaworregulationandthisOfficesinvestigationuncoveredthattheultimate
damageitselffromthatnightwasdocumentedininternalLVMPDmaintenancerecords
atthetimeoftheincidentorshortlythereafter.Therefore,anyclaimthattherewasa
coverupofthedamagecausedtothebladeismeritlessanddoesnotrisetothelevel
ofimpropergovernmentalaction.

ThehistoryoftheAirSupportUnitsuggeststherearesomeconcernsregarding
accuratelyandproperlyreporting,bothinternallyandexternallytotheappropriate
federalagency,allaccidents,incidents,orcrashes.Thisconcernwasfirstexpressedand
articulatedbytheSOARTeamduringtheirassessmentandwasincludedintheSOAR
report.EvenrecentlySheriffGillespiebroughtamattertothisOfficesattentionthat
mayhavewentunreportedinternallyortotheappropriatefederalagency.However,
thesearematterswithinthejurisdictionoftheNTSB.TheNTSBistheindependent
FederalAgencychargedwithinvestigatingeverysingleaviationaccidentintheUnited
_______________________
Page 7 of 18 pages

States.Itiscommissionedtobethesoleandfinalauthorityonaviationinvestigations.
Theyhavethefinalsayonwhethersomethingwasanaccidentoranincidentand
whetheraninvestigationintoamatterwillbeconducted.Wehavediscussedthese
historicalconcernsregardingLVMPDspotentialfailurestofullyreportwithInvestigator
JonesoftheNTSBandheconfirmedthathehasbeeninrecentcontactwithLVMPD
regardingtheseissues.Hefurtherconfirmedthathewillbelookingintothese
allegationsaspartofhisinvestigation,andwasinagreementthatthereappearstobe
nostatelaworregulationviolation.Asthefinalauthorityonaviationinvestigations,
theyaretheproperagencytohandlethesemattersandanypotentialpolicyorfederal
violations.ThisOfficesinvestigationunderNRS289.110isnarrowlytailoredbythat
statuteanddealssolelyinstatelaworregulation,andtherehasbeennocredible
evidencepresentedtooruncoveredbythisOfficetosustainthisallegationofimproper
governmentalactionatthistime.

TheSOARTeamsfindingsontheissueofinadequatereportingledtomultiple
recommendations,publishedintheAirSupportRecommendationsandProcessReport,
thefinalpublicreportreleasedbyLVMPDregardingtheSOARTeams
recommendations.Thereportdetailedthefollowingspecificrecommendationsrelated
tothisissueofreporting:

1. regardingaccident/incidentimprovetheprocess,investigationmethodology,
andreportingprotocolsinternallyandexternally;
2. ensureallreportingrequirements/notificationsinternallyandexternallyare
completedand/ormade;
3. developmandatoryinternaldocumentationofallaccidentsorincidents.

Thestatusoftheserecommendations,accordingtothelastversionofthepublicreport
released,iscompleted.

Theonlyremainingstatelaworregulationallegedtohavebeenviolatedfromthisevent
isfelonycoercion.CoercionisdefinedinNRS207.190:

1.
Itisunlawfulforaperson,withtheintenttocompelanotherto
doorabstainfromdoinganactwhichtheotherpersonhasarighttodo
orabstainfromdoing,to:

(a)
Useviolenceorinflictinjuryupontheotherpersonorany
oftheotherpersonsfamily,orupontheotherpersonsproperty,or
threatensuchviolenceorinjury;

(b)
Deprivethepersonofanytool,implementorclothing,or
hinderthepersonintheusethereof;or

(c)
Attempttointimidatethepersonbythreatsorforce.
2.
Wherephysicalforceortheimmediatethreatofphysicalforceis
used,foracategoryBfelony.

_______________________
Page 8 of 18 pages

AfterthebladestrikeonNovember19,2011,thehelicopterwasredtagged,meaning
itwasdesignatednotairworthy,andotherpilotswouldknownottoflyit.TheSOAR
Teamclaimsthatinanattempttocoverupthedamagecausedinthebladestrike,the
pilotfeloniouslycoercedthemechanictogreentagthehelicopter(i.e.designateitas
airworthy)bygettinginhisfaceandyellingathim.Itisworthnotingthatwithin
theirownSOARreportandaninternalmemoregardingthisspecificincident,theSOAR
Teamfailstomentionthespecificsofhowthismechanicwasfeloniouslycoerced;the
reportmerelyassertsthathewasthreatenedandforcedtoplacethehelicopter
backinservice.Thespecificinformationofhowhewasthreatenedandforcedonly
cameinSgt.LorussosinterviewwiththisOffice.Thehelicopterwasthereafterallegedly
greentagged,meaningitwasnotedtootherpilotsthatthehelicopterwasair
worthy,andtwootherpilotsflewarescuemissionthatnextday.Afterthatmission,
thehelicopterwasonceagainredtaggedbythemechanicandthebladewas
ultimatelyreplaced.

Inreviewingthisallegation,thisOfficecanonlyreviewfelonyviolationsforviabilityas
wearenowbeyondthestatuteoflimitationsforbothgrossmisdemeanorsand
misdemeanors.ThespecificallegationbytheSOARTeamisfelonycoerciononthepart
ofthepilot.Sgt.Lorussoreportedinhisinterviewthathespokewiththemechanicwho
putthehelicopterbackinserviceandclaimedthemechanicsaidthatthepilotgotin
hisfaceandtoldhimmultipletimestoputitbackinservice.Thiswastheextentof
thereportedconversationandtherewasnothingarticulatedbySgt.Lorussotosupport
anallegationofanyimmediatethreatofphysicalforceasrequiredtochargefelony
coercion.

ThisOfficecontactedthemechanicwhowasallegedtobethevictimofthefelony
coercion.Hestated,andlaterconfirmedinwriting,thatthisentireincidentwasblown
outofproportionbytheSOARTeam.Hewasspecificallyaskedifthepilotforcedhimto
putthehelicopterbackinserviceandadamantlydeniedthathewasthevictimofa
crime.Heindicatedthathedoesnotworkforthepilot,butworksforLVMPD,andthe
pilothasnoauthorityoverthemaintenancedepartment.Hefurtherstatedhewould
neverallowapilottoinfluencehimorhisopinions,especiallyifitwouldputanother
crewinjeopardy.Hewasdeeplyconcernedthathewasbeingaccusedofbeing
complicitinacoverupofthebladestrike.Heindicatedtherewasnocoverup.The
bladewasinspected,greateffortsweretakentoensurethesafetyoftheaircraftandit
wasalldocumentedontheaircraftsmaintenancelogs.

Consequently,sincetheallegedvictimofthecrimedeniesthathewasavictim,
confirmingthathewasnotcompelledtodoanactwhichhehadarighttoabstainfrom
doing,thisallegationisnotviableforprosecution.Furthermore,thefactsofthe
coercionasallegedbySgt.Lorusso,regardinghowtheallegedvictimmechanicwas
forcedtoputthehelicopterbackinservice,fallshortoftherequiredelementsoffelony
coercion.Therewasnodisclosureofanycriminalwrongdoingatthetimeoftheincident
toLVMPDorwhentheallegedsuspectpilotretiredfromtheunit,norwasthereany
_______________________
Page 9 of 18 pages

disclosureatanytimeofanythreatsorintimidationbythemechanictotheNTSBorthe
FAA.TheonlyallegeddisclosurecamewhenaninvestigationintotheAirSupportUnit
wasunderwayandwhenitwasknownthatsomeonewouldbelookingintothis
incident.Therefore,giventhecredibilityissues,theremotenessintime,the
insufficiencyofthefactstomeettheelementsofthecrime,andtheallegedvictims
denialthathewasavictim,weconcludethatwecouldnotprovethischargebeyonda
reasonabledoubt.Therefore,therearenoviablechargesforcriminalprosecutionand
thisallegationdoesnotrisetothelevelofimpropergovernmentalaction.

B.

LVMPDs Handling of SOAR Team Assessment and Report

IninvestigatinghowemployeesofLVMPDhandedtheSOARTeamsassessmentand
subsequentreport,itisimportanttofirstlookattheSOARTeamscreation.Inthefallof
2012,ExecutiveStaffatLVMPDrequestedthattherebeaninternalassessmentofthe
AirSupportUnitaftertheUnithadtwoaviationincidentswithinarelativelyshortperiod
oftime.Ultimately,LVMPDwantedtoknowwheretheAirSupportUnitwascurrently,
whereitcamefrom,andwhereitshouldgointhefuture.

Theassessmentbeganasafactfindingmissionwithouttheneedtoblame,fingerpoint,
ridicule,oropine.TheendgoalwastoestablishastrategicplanfortheAirSupportUnit
withobjectivesthatwerespecific,clear,measurableandachievable.Thiswouldbe
accomplishedthroughvariousrecommendationsmadebytheSOARTeam.Most
importantly,theultimategoalwastoprovidetheSheriffwithareportgiving
recommendationsforchangestotheAirUnitwhichwouldfosteranewculture,
increasesafetyandtraining,andimproveprotocolsandprocedures.Itwasintended
thattheSOARTeamgoonahistoricalfactfindingmission,lookatcrashdata,lookat
culturalissuespastandpresent,reviewcurrentpracticesandfigureouthowtheUnit
gotthere,andinterviewemployeesbothpastandpresentwhocouldprovideinsight.

TheassessmentwasassignedtotheCriticalIncidentReviewTeam(CIRT)underthe
OfficeofInternalOversight(OIO).TwoofficerswithincreasedknowledgeoftheAir
Unitweretemporarilyassignedtoassist:Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorusso.Themembers
taskedwiththisreviewcametobeknownastheSOARTeam,andincludedLt.Guedry,
Sgt.Lorusso,membersandstafffromCIRTandvarioussupportstaff.Duringtheinitial
discussionofthescope,procedure,timeframe,anddirectionoftheproject,manyCIRT
personnelwereinvolved,includingDeputyChiefPrimas,whowasthenCaptaininOIO,
Lt.LaRochelle,thenLieutenantinCIRT,Sgt.Black,Lt.Guedry,Sgt.Lorusso,supportstaff,
andvariousotheremployees.

GiventhatthisassessmentwasbeingconductedunderCIRT,allCIRTprotocolswereto
befollowed.Specifically,thisincludedconfidentialityandinternalreview.CIRTreviews
areconsideredhighlyconfidentialduetothesensitivenatureofthematerialsbeing
accessed,includingconfidentialinternalpersonnelfiles,confidentialinternalreports,
_______________________
Page 10 of 18 pages

employeeevaluations,opinionsfromcurrentandformeremployees,andmedical
information.Additionally,whenanassessmentisbeingconductedtouncover
informationneededtomakeimprovementsandchanges,itisimperativethatthose
conductingtheassessmentareabletoelicitcomplete,open,honest,andaccurate
informationfromwhateversourcenecessary.Anemployeewhoknowshisorher
responsewillbemadepublicmaywithholdimportantinformationforfearofretaliation
orprosecution.Ifthegoalofanassessmentistoferretoutthegoodandthebadsuch
thatrecommendationscanbemadeforthebettermentoftheUnitbeingassessed,all
informationmustbeconsideredwithoutfearofthoseprovidinginsight.Therefore,all
membersoftheSOARTeamwererequiredtoanddidsignconfidentialityagreements
whichstatedthattheywereexpectedtokeepconfidentialdocumentssecureandwere
prohibitedfromdiscussinganyconfidentialinformationoutsideofCIRTwithoutprior
approval.ThisisconsistentwithLVMPDspolicythatallrecordsunderCIRT,aswellas
verbaltopicsdiscussed,areconfidentialandarenottobediscussedorsharedwithany
unauthorizedpersonswithoutpriorapproval.Finally,oncetheassessmentwas
completed,anyreportdraftedbytheSOARTeamwastofollowCIRTsextensiveinternal
reviewprocess.

Lt.GuedryconfirmedduringhisinterviewthattheSOARTeamsreportwasintendedto
beinternalandconfidential.Hestatedthatitwasareportwrittenfortheeyesofthe
ExecutiveStaffonly,thatitwouldneverbeapublicreport,andwasoftheopinionthat
theAirSupportUnitwouldnotevenhaveanopportunitytoreviewthefinaldocument
beyondreceivingtheirrecommendations,thusmakingtherecommendationsthemost
importantpieceoftheforthcomingreport.Heconfirmedthattheassessmentwasto
focusonsafetyandheagreedtheywerenottryingtoholdpeopleaccountable.Atan
earlySOARTeammeetinginNovemberof2012,itwasdeterminedthatthe
recommendationsforchangeweretobebaseduponfactanddetailedinanobjective
report.Lt.Guedryagreedhedidnotwantasubjectivereport.Hefurtherstatedinhis
interviewthatwhenhetoldtheAirSupportUnitthatthisassessmentwasnotabout
accountability,hetoldthemthattheyhadanearandtotrusthim.

Thedeadlineforthecompletionofthereviewwasneverspecificallyaddressed,other
thantheunderstandingthatitwasessentialthatrecommendationsweremadeand
implementedinatimelymanner.SimultaneouswiththeSOARTeamsassessment,
personnelchangeswerealreadyhappeningintheAirSupportUnitandtheywere
makingtheirownchangestopolicyandprocedure.Additionally,theSOARTeamwould
providevariousstatusupdatestoCIRTandtheAirSupportUnitthatincluded
recommendationstobepromptlyimplementedgiventhattimeisoftheessence
whendealingwithsafetyconcerns.

TheSOARTeamcontinuedwiththeirinvestigationuntilroughlyMayof2013when
DeputyChiefRobertscameonboardasaCaptaininOIO.HemetwithDeputyChief
Primas,whowastheoutgoingCaptain,todiscusstheSOARTeamsprogress.Deputy
ChiefRobertswasbroughtuptospeedontheSOARTeamsbackgroundandtheir
_______________________
Page 11 of 18 pages

progress.Hestatedduringhisinterviewthathefeltlittleprogresswasmadeinthefive
monthsoftheinvestigationandwantedtoknowwheretheinvestigationstood.Itwas
discoveredatthismeetingthattheSOARTeamwishedtoconductinterviewswith
currentemployeesunderNRS289withsubjectnoticesinsteadofwitnessnotices.
Subjectnoticesinvolveawrittennoticetoapeaceofficerwhoisthesubjectofan
investigationintoallegedmisconductandresultsinaverylimitedandnarrowly
tailoredinterviewofthatpeaceofficerregardingtheallegedmisconduct.Witness
noticesaremoregeneralandrequirethepeaceofficertoattendandparticipate.Under
bothnotices,thestatementsmadebythepeaceofficerareinternalandgenerally
cannotbeusedagainsttheminanysubsequentcriminalproceedingpursuanttoNevada
caselaw.KnowingthatblameoraccountabilitywasnotthedirectionaCIRTreview
shouldbetaking,DeputyChiefRobertsaskedtheSOARTeamtoholdoffuntilhecould
consultthenUndersheriffJamesDixon,whohassinceretired.WhileLt.GuedryandSgt.
Lorussoconfirmedthatatthestartoftheirassessmentitwasnotaboutaccountability,
theyfelttheyhadnochoicebuttogoforwardwiththesubjectnotices.AlthoughLt.
GuedryclaimsthatitwasDeputyChiefPrimasideatousethem,Sgt.Lorussostatedin
hisinterviewthatitwashisownideatodoso.DeputyChiefPrimasandDeputyChief
RobertsbothstatedintheirinterviewsthatitwastheSOARTeamwhowantedtogo
forwardwithsubjectinterviewsandexpressedthattheyeachdisagreed.

DeputyChiefRobertsdiscussedthisinformationwithUndersheriffDixontoconfirmthat
subjectinterviewswerenotthedirectiontotakewhenthepurposeandscopeofthe
assessmentwastofactfind,gainasmuchtruthfulinformationaspossible,andpromote
anenvironmenttogaincooperation.InapproximatelyMayof2013,theSOARTeam
presentedtheirfindingstoUndersheriffDixon,aswellasDeputyChiefRoberts.
QuestionsbegantoariseastothedirectiontheSOARTeamwastakingwiththe
employeeinterviewsandtheirnewfocusonblameandaccountability.Theassessment
wasultimatelyterminatedandtheSOARTeamwasdirectedtodrafttheirreport.In
bothoftheirinterviews,Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussoacknowledgedthattheydidhave
enoughinformationtoputareporttogetherandlistrecommendations,butfeltthere
wasstillmoretobedoneintheassessment.Sgt.Lorussostatedthattheydidnothave
enoughtimetowritethereport.However,Lt.GuedrywastheonewhogavetheSOAR
TeamthedeadlineofJuly23,2013,togetthereportwrittenbecausehewanteditdone
beforeheleftforathreeweekvacation.DeputyChiefRobertswasoftheopinionthata
numberofitemscontainedinthenarrativeoftheSOARreportwerenotevenrelatedor
connectedtothefinalrecommendations,andthatalargenumberofthefinal
recommendationswerestandardandtakenfromnationalstandardsthat,inreality,the
SOARTeamknewaboutondayone.

AccordingtoCIRTpolicy,beforethedocumentbecameafinaladministrativedocument,
itwastogothroughCIRTsinternalpeerreviewprocess.However,bytheendofthe
assessment,itwasLt.GuedrysbeliefthattheywerenolongeranswerabletoCIRT.He
claimsthattheSOARTeamwasonitsown,thathewasincharge,thatthiswasan
investigation,peoplewouldbeheldaccountable,andhewasnotparticipatinginany
_______________________
Page 12 of 18 pages

reviewprocess.Hestatedhebelievedthathisinvestigationwastooserioustorequire
followingLVMPDpoliciesaboutinternalCIRTreviewortofollowOIOproceduresand
protocols.However,hedidnotarticulateanythingtosuggestthatSheriffGillespieor
anyCaptaininCIRTagreedwiththisbeliefandwehavenotreceivedanyconfirmation
fromLVMPDthattheyacquiescedtothismassiveshiftinpolicyandprocedurethat
wouldhaveallowedSOARtobeitsownunit,freefromoversightorreview.

Oncethereportwascompleted,Lt.GuedryemaileditdirectlytoUndersheriffDixon.
ThereportdidnotgothroughevenonelevelofinternalreviewinCIRT.WhileSgt.
Lorussoconfirmedthatthereportwasnotvetted,Lt.GuedryclaimsthattheSOAR
Teamvetteditthemselves.Theunthinkablehappenedhoursafterthereportwas
turnedin:OfficerVanbuskirkofSearchandRescuelosthislifeduringarescue
operation.

Lt.GuedryclaimspartoftheallegedimpropergovernmentalactionishowLVMPD
proceededaftertheSOARreportwasprovidedtothenUndersheriffDixon.Accordingto
Lt.Guedry,monthswentbybeforeheheardfromanyoneabouthisreportandthatwas
wrong.However,DeputyChiefRobertsstatedthatLVMPDwasdealingwiththeloss
ofOfficerVanbuskirkandthecorrespondinginvestigationintothataccident.

Lt.GuedryfurtherclaimsthathetoldUndersheriffDixonthathisreportwasafinal
report,andthathewouldnotberewritinganything.ThisisclearlycontrarytoLVMPD
policy.EvenifweacceptastruethatUndersheriffDixonapprovedtheSOARTeams
bypassingoftheinternalreviewprocess,andagreedwithLt.Guedrythattherewould
benorewriteoftheSOARreport,SheriffGillespie,forwhomthereportwasintended,
statedhewasdisappointedintheSOARreport.SheriffGillespiestatedinaffidavit
responsetoinquirybythisOfficethattheSOARreportcontainedunsubstantiatedor
solesourceopinionsassertedasfactinalmosteveryparagraphoneverypageofthe
entirereport.Hebelieveditcontain[ed]confidentialpersonalinformationand
assertionsofopinionstatedasfactthat[he]believedcouldpotentiallybeslanderous.
Therefore,itwasnotthereporthewantedoraskedfor,itwasnotthereportthatwas
intendedtobethefinalproductofhisSOARTeam,andhedemandeditberevisedasa
professional,useabledocument.

Lt.LaRochellestatedthatwhiletheSOARreportwassomethingthatwasclearly
outsideaproductthat[they]wouldcreateatCIRT,therewereaspectsthatwere
interestingandofvaluetotheassessment.Hestatedthattherecommendationsasthey
werepresentedwereusefulinrelationtotheintentoftheassessmentinestablishing
aroadmaponhowtoimprovetheAirSupportUnit.Hestatedthatashegotfurther
throughtheSOARreport,hecametoaverypoorrealizationthat[it]wasmorefault
findingandhindsightlookingasopposedtoforwardthinkingandpositivelyaddressing
issues.Hefeltasiftherewasalotofsubjectivenegativityinitthatwouldnotbe
presentinaprofessionalCIRTreport.HeindicatedunderCIRT,theydealwithfacts,not
onepersonsunsubstantiatedopinion.Hestatedthathedidnotlikehowthey
_______________________
Page 13 of 18 pages

categorizedpeopleinthatreport,andfeltlikethatwasdangerous,thatitwas
unprofessional,andthatitcameacrossattackingandwewerentbeingfairtothose
employeesinthereviewprocess.Thereport,tohim,expressedofalotofemotionand
wasnotawellrounded,balancedreport.Whileheadmitshedidnotfinishthenarrative
ofthereport,givingupafter40or50pagesduetofrustration,hedidlookatthe
historicalinformationandcharts.Finally,heindicatedthateventhoughthedeliveryof
theinformationwasinappropriateandunprofessional,theobjective,neutral,andfact
findingcontentwasstilluseful,relevantinformation.

AccordingtoDeputyChiefRoberts,theSOARreportwasnotaprofessionaldocumentof
whichhewouldbeproud.Hestatedthatthenarrativeofthereportimproperly
containedmedicalinformation,uncorroboratedsolesourceinformation,andopinions
statedasfact.Thetoneofthereportwasangryandnegativeandthatthisthemeor
tonewasunnecessarilyrepeatedoverandoveragain.Heindicatedthatthematrixof
recommendationswerefine,eventhoughsomewereslantedandcontained
informationthatgenerallywouldnotbeplacedintoareportlikethis.Heindicatedthis
wassupposedtobeanobjective,neutralreport,butitwasnot.Healsostatedeven
thoughsomeoftheinformationwasuncorroborated,biased,solesourceopinion,or
negative,itwouldstillbeinformationthattheywouldconsiderineffectuatingchange,
confirmingheaswelldidnottakeissuewiththecontentofthereport,butratherwith
thedeliveryoftheinformation.

DeputyChiefPrimasstatedhisfirstreactiontoreadingtheSOARreportwaswondering
whorevieweditandindicatedhewasdisappointedinthefinalproduct.Hewaswell
awarethattheSOARreportwassupposedtoundergotheinternalCIRTreviewprocess
toensurethatitsanobjectivereportbasedonfactsandmeasuredagainst
standard[s].Inhisopinion,theSOARreportreekedofsubjectivestatementsand
includedconclusionsbaseduponsolesourceinformation.Hefurtherconfirmedthatthe
historicalpiece,overlookingthesubjectivelanguage,containsincrediblyuseful
information,confirmingheaswelldidnottakeissuewiththecontentofthereport,but
ratherwiththedeliveryoftheinformation.

Therefore,basedupontheseinterviewsitisclearthatLVMPDwantedaprofessional,
objective,neutralreport.Theywantedtheangrytone,negativity,subjectivity,and
fantasticallyreachedconclusionsappropriatelyvettedandchangedintoaprofessional
report.Theydidnotrequestthecontent,historicalpiece,orrecommendationstobe
changedorsoftened,asthatinformationwashighlyrelevanttoeffectuatingchangeand
satisfyingthestatedpurposeoftheirassessment.

SheriffGillespieandUndersheriffDixonthereforedisagreedwithLt.Guedrysallegation
thatthisdocumentwasthefinalreport.EvenLt.Guedryadmittedinhisinterviewthat
hewastoldthereportneededtobemoreprofessional.Heneverclaimedthathewas
askedtosoftenitinanyway,minimizeit,orremoveuglyinformation.Thereisnothing
tosuggestthatLVMPDwantedtoburyanyinformation,soften,orminimizeany
_______________________
Page 14 of 18 pages

informationcollectedbytheSOARTeam.ItappearsthatisaconclusionLt.Guedry
reachedonhisownaccordandwhichhasbeenshowntobewithoutmerit.

TheSOARTeamwascontactedthroughLt.Guedryanddirectedtoparticipateinthe
internalreviewprocess,andLt.Guedryadmittedlyrefused.Itappearshewas
insubordinategoingforwardasbothLt.GuedryandDeputyChiefRobertsstatedthatLt.
Guedrywasdirectedbysupervisingofficerstoparticipateintheinternalreviewprocess
andrefused.Itwasclearthatnoonewassatisfiedwiththequalityofthereport.It
appearsLt.GuedrysrefusaltoparticipatecontributedgreatlytothereasonLVMPD
decidedthereport,aswritten,couldnotbereleasedinanyformattothepublic.This
OfficefindsthereisnoviolationofstatelaworregulationwhenaSheriffdisagreeswith
oneofhisemployees;especiallywhenitwasanemployeewhosoughttocircumvent
knownpoliciesandproceduresbecauseofhisownbeliefthathisreviewwastoo
serioustofollowestablishedprotocol.

WhenSheriffGillespiediscoveredthatthereportdidnotgothroughthenormalinternal
CIRTreviewprocessandfoundthattheauthorrefusedtoparticipateinthenormal
reviewprocess,hedirectedthatthereportbereviewedforthepurposeof
extrapolatinganyusefulrecommendationsregardingchangestopolicy,personneland
resourceallocationtocompletetheoriginaltask,whichwouldbedocumentedina
publicreport.ThecontentoftheSOARreportitselfwasneveratissue,ratheritwasthe
deliveryofthatinformationandsubjectiveconclusionsdrawnbytheSOARteam.
WithouttheSOARteamsparticipation,LVMPDwasnotinthepositiontocompletethe
internalreviewprocess.Therefore,LVMPDhadnochoicebuttoscrapanyhopeof
creatingaprofessionaldocumentoutoftheSOARTeamsreport,andwentforward
withthepublicreportonly.Consequently,LVMPDtookall70recommendationsmade
bytheSOARTeamintheSOARreportandmadethosepublicalongwithabrief
statementofthepurposeoftheassessment.

Consequently,thisisnotasituationofareportbeingchanged,minimizedorsoftened.
ThereisnoevidencetosupportafindingthattheSOARTeamuncoveredinformation
thatwasvitaltothehealth,safety,andwelfareoftheAirSupportUnitthatwas
suppressedorburiedfromLVMPDstafformembersoftheAirUnitinchargeof
institutionalizingchange.Allthatinformationexistsinitsentiretytoday.HadtheSOAR
Teamparticipatedintherewriteandinternalreviewprocess,theSOARreportwould
stillbeaconfidential,internaladministrativereport.Oncethatinternaladministrative
reportwascompleted,thepublicreportandsubsequentupdatesthatwerereleased
detailingtherecommendationsforchangestillwouldhavebeencompletedasperCIRT
policy.

ThisisinlinewithwhatLt.Guedryreportedinhisinterview.Theinternaladministrative
documentthatwastobeinitiallycreatedbytheSOARTeamwasneverintendedtobea
publicreport.ItisthereforeconflictingtoclaimthatLVMPDisinvolvedincriminal
activityforfailingtoreleaseareporthestateswastobeaprivate,internalreportall
_______________________
Page 15 of 18 pages

along.HeconfirmedthatthereportwaswrittenformembersoftheExecutiveStaff
only.HeknewthatsincetheassessmentwashousedinCIRT,LVMPDwouldultimately
makeapublicreportregardingtheassessmentandtherecommendationsforchange.

Eventhoughthereporthadnotbeenvettedandinternallyreviewed,andknowingit
containedrelevantinformation,theSOARreportwasstilldisseminatedtotheAirUnit
fortheiruseineffectuatingchangeandimplementingthefinalrecommendations.The
informationcontainedthereinwasreferredtoindiscussionsonimplementingchanges
intheAirUnit.TheSOARreportstillexists,asoriginallydrafted,andismaintainedin
LVMPDCIRTasaninternaldocument.IfthereischangewithinAirSupportandanew
Captainwantedtoreviewthereport,itisavailableandreviewablewithinCIRT.

ThepublicreportreleasedbyLVMPDonlyliststwoaviationaccidents,Septemberof
2012andMayof2012.ItdidnotcontaininformationregardingtheNovember2011
bladestrikeuncoveredbytheSOARTeam.Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussoclaimthis
omissionqualifiesasafalseormisleadingstatementinviolationofNRS197.130.Itis
notdisputedthatsomeoneinLVMPDorderedtheassessmenttobeconductedbecause
oftheMay2012andSeptember2012bladestrikes.TheNovember2011bladestrike
wasnotknowntokeymembersofLVMPDatthattime.Therefore,tosaythattheSOAR
assessmentwasstartedbecauseofabladestrikethatwasunknownatthattimewould
havebeenfalse.TheNovember2011bladestrikewasuncoveredduringthe
assessment,alongwiththenumerousotherincidentstheSOARTeamlookedinto,and
waspartoftheinformationgatheredduringandresultsoftheassessment.Ittherefore
isproperlyapartofthehistoricaloverview,timelineofaviationaccidentsandincidents,
andfactualbackgroundtoconsiderinmakingchangetotheAirSupportUnit.Thisclaim
ismeritless.

Whenthisassessmentfirstbegan,everyonewasonboardthatitwasaboutforward
thinkingandfactfindingandtointerviewemployeestogaininformationandevidence
andtocomeupwithrecommendationsforchange.EvenLt.Guedryadmittedthathe
toldcurrentemployeesoftheAirSupportUnitthattheassessmentwasnotgeared
towardholdingpeopleaccountable,thattheyhadanear,andtotrusthim.Sgt.Lorusso
appearstobetheonlyonewhorefusedtoacknowledgethis.Rather,hestatedthat
LVMPDleftitopenastowhetherpeoplewouldbeheldaccountabledowntheroad.
However,inbothoftheirinterviewstheyacknowledgetheywantedtogiveeveryone
immunityandwerenotconcernedwithaccountability.

Totakeaprojectwhosemissionwastofindfacts,identifyconcerns,andmake
recommendationswithoutregardtopersonalblameandtoarbitrarilychangeittoa
missionthatencouragesthatthoseprovidingtheinformationandfactsbeinternally,
criminally,orfederallyprosecutedwoulddamageallfutureprojectswhoseaimisto
lookforwardtobettercommunicationandidentificationofconcernssothattheycanbe
addressedorremedied.Itwillsuppressfuturegrowthandchange,andthatisthereal
dangertothesafetyofallUnitswithinLVMPD.
_______________________
Page 16 of 18 pages


Consequently,itistheopinionoftheDistrictAttorneysOfficethattheDepartments
handlingoftheSOARreportanditsconductrelatingtotheassessmentasallegedinthe
requestdoesnotconstituteimpropergovernmentalaction.Theallegationsthatthe
recommendationscontainedwithintheoriginalSOARreportwereminimized,softened,
orthattheyunderwentsubstantialorsignificantchangesarebeliedbythefactthatthe
SOARreportstillexists,initsentirety,tothisday.Furthermore,theDepartments
decisiontokeepthisreportconfidentialandnotreleaseittothepublicnotonlyfailsto
risetothelevelofimpropergovernmentalaction,butitappearstobeconsistentwith
caselawandLVMPDpolicy.

Confidentiality

ConfidentialityisrelevanttoaninvestigationbythisOfficeunderNRS289.110(4),which
statesthatthisstatutedoesnotauthorizeapeaceofficertodiscloseinformationifthe
disclosureisotherwiseprohibitedbylaw.ThisOfficecannotignoreLVMPDsclaimsthat
theSOARreportappearstobeconfidential.ItisdifficultforthisOfficetocometoany
otherconclusion.ThereportwasgeneratedbytheCIRTteam,ahighlyconfidentialunit
withintheLVMPDorganization.Lt.GuedryandSgt.Lorussosignedagreementsastothe
confidentialnatureoftheinvestigation.Thereportitself,asauthoredbyLt.Guedry,Sgt.
LorussoandDet.Golgart,includesabrightreddisclaimeronthefrontofthedocument:
ConfidentialInternalAssessment,NotforPublicRelease.Thatdisclaimerisrepeatedon
everypage.Furthermore,withinCIRTsguidelines,allinformationdiscussedand
communicatedistobeconfidential.

However,theissueofprivilegeisofminimalconcerninthisOfficesinvestigationunder
NRS289.110.EventhoughpursuanttoNRS289.110(4),itappearsweshouldnothave
beengivencertaininformationbyMr.Aldrich,Lt.Guedry,orSgt.Lorusso,therealityis
wehaveit,LVMPDknowswehaveit,andwehaverevieweditandallmaterials
providedaspartofourinvestigationintotheallegedclaimofimpropergovernmental
action.

AtthedirectionofLVMPDandattheconclusionofourinvestigation,theSOARreport
willbeturnedintoLVMPDsgeneralcounselasrequested.Furthermore,sincewewere
providedwithinformationfromtheOfficerVanbuskirkinvestigationthatappearstobe
confidentialaswell,itwilllikewisebereturned.

Conclusion

TheJuly23,2013,reportcreatedbytheSOARTeamwasnotchanged,modified,
minimized,orsoftened.ThatreportexistsaswrittenbytheSOARTeamasan
administrativeinternalreport,eventhoughitcontainsopinions,uncorroboratedclaims,
andclaimsgearedtowardsaccountability,misconduct,andassigningblameforpast
_______________________
Page 17 of 18 pages

incidents.ItisavailabletokeymembersofLVMPDstaffwhoneedittoimplement
changeormakenewpolicywithintheAirUnit.Itappears,therefore,thatitisapre
decisionaldocumentthatwasusedandreviewedbyExecutiveStaffpriortomaking
policyandoperationaldecisions.

ContrarytotheallegationthathigherupsinLVMPDdidnotliketheinformation
uncoveredbecauseitwastoougly,almosteveryoneinvolvedatLVMPDpraisedthe
workdonebytheSOARTeam.Consequently,theinformationuncoveredbytheSOAR
Teamwasnotconsideredunwantedorbadinformationthatwassubsequentlyburied.
ThehistoricalinformationuncoveredbytheSOARTeamwillcontinuetobeavaluable
resourcetotheAirSupportUnitgoingforward,andalsototheNTSBintheir
investigation.ItisclearthatExecutiveStaffsandSheriffGillespieweredisappointedin
theworkproductoftheSOARTeamandthefinalreporttheyproduced.

ThemostimportantaspectoftheSOARTeamwascreatingrecommendationsfor
changewithintheAirUnit.AllrecommendationsmadebytheSOARTeamwere
includedinthepublicreports,andinmakingdecisionsaboutthoserecommendations,
staffofLVMPDusedtheinformationobtainedduringtheSOARTeamsinvestigation.In
theSOARreport,theSOARTeamdocumentedwhatitwantedtodobutdidnotgeta
chanceto,likevisitotherlawenforcementagencieswithairunits.Someoftheseitems
havebeendone,andsinceJuly23,2013,theCaptainandChiefofLVMPDsAirUnit
madethosevisits.LVMPDhasmadeadditionalchangesthatwerenotsuggestedinthe
SOARreportaswell.Asofthelatestversionofthepublicreport,datedJune30,2014,it
isapparenttheyarestillusingtheinformationcollectedduringtheSOARTeamsreview
tomakethedifficultdecisionsregardingchangestotheAirUnit.

Consequently,theDepartmentshandlingoftheSOARTeam,theassessmentand
subsequentreportdoesnotrisetothelevelofimpropergovernmentalactionasalleged
intheinitialletterrequestinganinvestigation,andthereforetheseclaimsarewithout
merit.

SubmittedNovember19,2014

STEVENB.WOLFSON

DistrictAttorney

By

JESSICAA.WALSH

ChiefDeputyDistrictAttorney

_______________________
Page 18 of 18 pages