Blue wall of silence

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — With this report, we're taking you, our viewers, on a journey of discovery or the lack thereof. 13 Investigates has a behind-the-scenes look at how police respond, or don't, when we try to confirm information, ensure accountability, and break down the blue wall of silence.

Back in May, 13 Investigates got a tip from a highly-placed law enforcement source about inappropriate conduct involving Sheriff Kevin McMahill.

That tip is one step in reporting a story but not enough by our journalistic standards as we always work to cross-check information with multiple sources.

Despite widespread discussion of the inappropriate conduct within the department, and the details being reported online, Metro has stonewalled each of our attempts to get comment or confirmation.

Here's how it all went down. In May, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department worked with Channel 13 Anchor Justin Hinton, offering a lengthy sit-down interview with Sheriff McMahill in preparation for a series of stories.

"The purpose of this interview was to look at what he's planning on doing six months in, what he's done so far, and the changes that he wanted to make," Hinton explained.

Setting a tone for his tenure as sheriff, McMahill said "we like to hold ourselves to a very high standard here."

Five days after that interview, as Hinton was finalizing his series, 13 Investigates got the tip about the sheriff's alleged misconduct, so Hinton put his project on pause.

"I think that a lot of these things were very valuable for the community to hear. But based on this allegation, we didn't feel it was appropriate to move forward," Hinton explained.

That's in part because of things Sheriff McMahill said about his commitment to our community.

In that spirit of admitting when he's wrong and why, we sought a response to the tip we'd received.

To reach Sheriff McMahill about the tip, we went through Metro's standard protocol — contacting their Public Information Office, the gatekeeper for all media inquiries and the people we rely on for official comment.

We told them the details we'd been given and their immediate response was, "We don't comment on personnel matters."

Hinton tried too.

"I called the communications department, talked to some of those folks. They said that the sheriff was busy. They also said that they don't comment on personnel matters."

"To us, that indicates that there is, in fact, a personnel matter because they never denied the information we'd been given and never told us it was inaccurate. Is that an unfair assumption?" Darcy Spears asked Attorney David Chavez, who provided a legal perspective on our efforts.

"Well, if they're saying that there is some sort of exception that applies, that would allow them to prevent disclosure of that information because of a personnel matter. I do think that's a fair assumption. The existence of a personnel matter, absolutely," Chavez answered. "When you take your oath of office, you don't give up your privacy rights. That much is clear. However, you do open yourself up to some scrutiny because you're working on the public's dime."

One of our questions to the Public Information Office was about Metro's Code of Conduct and how it applies to the sheriff as an elected official. They told us to email the question, so we did on May 24. We also asked for a direct phone call with Sheriff McMahill and waited for nearly two weeks with no response. We then reached out again on June 5.

To date, Metro has never responded to that email and the sheriff has never called.

"If our job is to hold these leaders accountable, then at some point they do need to talk and they do need to express what's going on in their department because these are things that impact everybody," Hinton said.

If the information about the sheriff's inappropriate conduct is true, then he could be in violation of department policy. Metro standards make "conduct unbecoming an employee" grounds for disciplinary action, including discharge.

However, the sheriff is not an employee. He's an elected official so the conduct code may apply to him differently. To clarify that, we kept pushing for answers with Hinton also requesting a follow-up interview.

"I was told that his calendar was full for the next three months so I said okay. Then put me on the calendar in three months and nothing happened."

We requested a copy of the sheriff's calendar, which is a public record.

"What I got back were a number of dates that had a lot of redacted information," Hinton explained.

As for McMahill being booked solid for three months, Hinton noted there were several days where there was nothing scheduled.

"I think the public should have questions. I think the public should wonder, as I am wondering, why won't he go before us and talk to us," Hinton said. "If he was so willing to talk at the beginning when all of this started, now that there's an allegation that we're trying to ask questions about, why are you not willing to come forward and have the same sense of transparency to talk about it?"

Chavez calls the calendar redaction inordinate.

"Redacting half of an entry for a public meeting or half of an entry for a public event? I think the primary issue here is that they're simply not justifying, as required under the law, why those redactions are appropriate."

Metro included two general reasons for the redactions: Personnel Records and Privacy Interests. However, they weren't tied to any specific calendar entries.

"It's not sufficient to just cite a case or cite a statute and then pretend that the word 'personnel' or 'privacy interest' is a magic incantation that exempts you from the Public Records Act," Chavez said. "You have to be able to explain why that is."

As our repeated requests for a phone call with the sheriff continued to be ignored, we made another public records request asking for text messages and emails, including any between the sheriff and one of his subordinates.

"The Nevada Supreme Court has been very clear that even their personal cell phones, as long as the communications relate to public business or to public duties, are fair game under the Public Records Act," Chavez said.

Metro emailed a letter rejecting our request, claiming it was too broad and too much of a burden for staff to produce the records.

"It seems to me that the letter falls far short of what is required under the Public Records Act," Chavez said. "The purpose of the Public Records Act is to promote transparency and accountability. Disclosure is the rule and non-disclosure is the exception."

Two months into our search for answers, we accepted an invitation to "Lunch With The Sheriff" at Red Rock Resort on July 19, where media interviews were part of the program. We asked for a few moments to speak with the sheriff. Metro's communications director would not allow it.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 13 Investigates reached out to Metro to let them know when our report would air and to ask for comment once again. Once again, Metro did not respond.