IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE No. 83515
DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE APR 2 9 2022
ERIKA D. BALLOU, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERISV TDREUE COURT
Respondents, ‘
BY •
CLFIRM(
(5-4-
DEPUTY
and
TERRENIE D. MCDOWELL,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original writ petition for a writ of mandamus or, in
the alternative, prohibition challenging an order granting a return of
property motion in a criminal case. After engaging in a discussion with an
undercover officer at the airport, real party in interest Terrenie D.
McDowell was arrested and charged with pandering.2 During the arrest,
petitioner the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, seized
approximately $12,000 in cash from McDowell. After McDowell pleaded
guilty to attempted pandering, he moved for the return of the money. Before
the district court resolved that motion, LVMPD filed a civil forfeiture action
as to the money. The district court granted McDowell's motion despite the
'Pursuant to NRAP 3401), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this matter.
2See NRS 201.300(1) (providing that pandering occurs when a person,
without physical threat, "induces an adult to unlawfully become a prostitute
or to continue to engage in prostitution").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A <411011./
-13 ‘,63
pending forfeiture action, and LVMPD challenges that decision via this writ
petition. Because it does not appear that LVMPD has an adequate and
speedy remedy, we choose to entertain its petition. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007).
However, for the reasons stated below, we deny LVMPD's requested relief.
Under NRS 179.085(1)(e), a party "aggrieved by . . the
deprivation of property may move the court having jurisdiction where the
property was seized for the return of the property on the ground
that . . . [detention of the property by law enforcement is not reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances." The statute contemplates that
such motions will generally be filed within a criminal proceeding. NRS
179.085(5) ("If a motion pursuant to this section is filed when no criminal
proceeding is pending, the motion must be treated as a civil complaint
seeking equitable relief.").
We see no manifest abuse of discretion or error of law in the
district court's decision that would warrant writ relief. See Walker v.
Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 679-81, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-97
(2020) (discussing that a petitioner must show a legal right to the relief
sought or that the district court "rnanifestlf abused its discretion for writ
relief to be warranted). It is not an abuse of discretion to conclude that
LVMPD's retention of the money under the circumstances was
unreasonable because it was unrelated to the pandering charge—McDowell
did not pay the money to the undercover cop, attempt to purchase anything
3As the district court has jurisdiction to resolve such motions, we
decline to issue a writ of prohibition. See NRS 34.320 (providing that a writ
of prohibition is appropriate when a district court acts in excess of its
jurisdiction).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
for her with the money, or take the money from her. Moreover, LVMPD
does not assert that the money retains any evidentiary value in the criminal
case. Although the money is the subject of LVMPD's separate civil
forfeiture action, the district court was aware of that when making its
"totality of the circumstances" decision under NRS 179.085(1)(e), and the
district court's decision does not prevent LVMPD from proceeding in the
forfeiture case. In light of the foregoing, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.4
, C.J.
Parraguirre
Cadish
cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge
Liesl K. Freedman
S. Scott Greenberg
Clark County Public Defender
Federal Public Defender/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
4The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
We lift the stay previously imposed on September 30, 2021.
3