Judges and Police Clash Over Electronic Monitoring Releases

Metro says it has authority to reject court orders for electronic monitoring, raising separation of powers concerns

Mar. 13, 2026 at 4:49pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Judges in Las Vegas have ordered the release of defendants on electronic monitoring, only to have the Metropolitan Police Department refuse to follow the decisions. Metro says it has authority under state law to decide whether putting someone on electronic monitoring poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, leading to a clash with the judiciary over separation of powers.

Why it matters

The dispute highlights a broader issue of the executive branch overstepping into territory that belongs to the judiciary. It raises concerns about due process and the ability of defendants to challenge Metro's decisions, as well as the potential for the police to flout court orders.

The details

In multiple recent cases, Metro has notified judges that it is rejecting their orders to release defendants on electronic monitoring, often weeks after the original release order. Metro argues it has the authority to make this determination under state law, while public defenders say the department is unconstitutionally exercising a judicial function. The conflict is now before the Nevada Supreme Court, with pending challenges filed by both Metro and the Clark County public defender's office.

  • On January 13, a Las Vegas Justice of the Peace set bail at $25,000 for Joshua Sanchez-Lopez and ordered him to be placed on high-level electronic monitoring if he posted bail.
  • On January 24, Sanchez-Lopez posted bond but was still in custody as of February 5.
  • On February 5, the judge held another hearing and issued a second order for Sanchez-Lopez to be released to electronic monitoring by the next day.
  • On February 9, Sanchez-Lopez was still in custody, prompting the judge to say 'Call me crazy, but I'm the judge. I would like to think that my orders are actual orders.'

The players

Metropolitan Police Department

The law enforcement agency in Las Vegas that is responsible for the electronic monitoring program and has been rejecting court orders to release defendants on electronic monitoring.

David Westbrook

A public defender who has argued that Metro is unconstitutionally and unlawfully exercising a judicial function by determining inmates' custody status.

Michael Dickerson

An attorney for Metro who has said the department has the authority to determine whether electronic supervision of a particular individual poses an unreasonable risk to public safety.

Eric Goodman

A Las Vegas Justice of the Peace who has clashed with Metro over its refusal to follow his orders to release defendants on electronic monitoring.

Erika Mendoza

A District Judge who ultimately agreed with Metro's determination that a defendant could only be placed on the more restrictive high-level electronic monitoring, not the medium-level monitoring she had originally ordered.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We're in a very dangerous time in our country's history where members of the executive branch think they have the ability to override the will of judges who have assessed the situation and exercised judicial discretion.”

— David Westbrook, Public Defender (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

“Call me crazy, but I'm the judge. I would like to think that my orders are actual orders.”

— Eric Goodman, Las Vegas Justice of the Peace (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

“If the sheriff has determined that electronic supervision of a particular individual poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, the court does not have the power to tell the sheriff: 'Violate the law.'”

— Michael Dickerson, Attorney for Metro (Las Vegas Review-Journal)

What’s next

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear the pending challenges filed by both Metro and the Clark County public defender's office regarding the dispute over electronic monitoring releases.

The takeaway

This clash between judges and the police department over electronic monitoring releases highlights the broader issue of the executive branch overstepping into the judiciary's domain, raising concerns about separation of powers, due process, and the potential for law enforcement to disregard court orders.