Steve Rye filed a Notice of Appeal on March 9 of the Feb. 27 Fernley Municipal Court order that dismissed the battery case against Stan Lau.
The appeal challenges the dismissal, which followed months of procedural delays and disputes over Lau’s right to a speedy trial.
Attorney Lauren Gorman, representing Lau, had filed two motions to dismiss the case, on Jan. 30 and Feb. 16.
In the Jan. 30 motion, Gorman argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that Lau was not brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment, that the delay was not attributable to the defendant and the State could not demonstrate good cause.
Much of the delay stemmed from the case being transferred back and forth between courts last fall.
On Aug. 20, Fernley City Attorney Aaron Mouritsen filed a Motion to Transfer the case to Canal Township Justice Court, followed by an Amended Motion to Transfer on Aug. 27 to send the case to Walker River Justice Court.
An arraignment hearing was held on Sept. 17 in Walker River Justice Court. A prosecutor was not present at that hearing, and a pretrial hearing was scheduled for Oct. 14. That hearing was continued until Nov. 13. On that date, the prosecutor and Lau’s attorney stipulated to transfer the case back to Fernley Municipal Court because the case did not meet the requirements for transfer.
On Jan. 13, Fernley Municipal Court Judge Lori Matheus entered an order recusing herself and assigning Senior Judge Derek Dreiling to preside. Lau was arraigned in Municipal Court by Judge Dreiling on Jan. 22 and appointed counsel. Rye said Lau invoked his right to trial for the first time at the Jan. 22 arraignment, and a trial was scheduled for March 13.
On Feb. 12, Rye filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss in response to the motion filed by Gorman on Jan. 30, arguing that Lau did not invoke his right to a speedy trial at the Sept. 17 arraignment in Walker River Justice Court. In that motion, Rye wrote that there is no misconduct on the part of the prosecution or extended prejudice to the defendant.
In her second Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 16, Gorman argued that Lau never waived his right to a speedy trial.
“The State appears to argue that because Mr. Lau failed to ‘assert’ his right to a trial in 60 days he waived it. That is contrary to statute,” Gorman wrote. “Under NRS 178.556, the 60-day trial right is not something that needs to be affirmatively invoked. Instead, it is mandatory until and unless it is waived by the defendant.”
She also argued that the State cannot meet its burden of showing good cause for the delay, saying the venue transfers are attributable to the prosecution, not the defense.
Lau was arrested Aug. 18 on a request for a citizen’s arrest after an altercation with a construction worker, who alleged that Lau punched him in the side of the head.
According to a Motion to Suppress statements filed by Gorman on Feb. 16, Chester Patterson was working as part of a road construction crew near 110 Shadow Lane when Lau attempted to leave the parking lot around 3 p.m. The motion states Lau confronted Patterson, began yelling, then approached him, grabbed his glasses off his face and punched him in the side of the head.
After Lau left the scene, Patterson filled out a citizen’s arrest form. A sheriff’s deputy later contacted Lau at his home, where Lau admitted to grabbing Patterson’s glasses, but said he did so in response to Patterson pushing his chest against him. Lau also said Patterson threw his hard hat at him, first claiming it hit him in the stomach and later saying it hit him in the back.
Lau was arrested and charged with battery and destruction of property.
In the Motion to Suppress, Gorman argued that officers questioned Lau without issuing a Miranda warning advising him of his rights. She wrote that because Lau was accused of a misdemeanor that was not committed in the presence of law enforcement, the officers lacked independent authority to arrest him. She also wrote that because they relied on a citizen’s arrest form asserting that Lau had already been arrested and was merely being delivered to law enforcement, any statements obtained after the form was signed are the direct product of a post-arrest interrogation without the issuing of Miranda warnings and must be suppressed.
The motion argues that a citizen’s arrest is not a future authorization, it is a formal declaration that the arrest has already occurred.
“At that moment, Mr. Lau was under arrest,” the motion states. “Because the officer had no statutory or constitutional authority to arrest absent the citizen’s action, the only possible moment of arrest is when the citizen’s arrest was signed affirming an arrest had been made and Mr. Lau was merely being delivered to law enforcement – not later.”
The motion requested that because Lau was never Mirandized, the court suppress all statements allegedly made by Lau after 3:50 p.m. on Aug. 18.
In his Opposition to the Motion to Suppress filed on Feb. 19, Rye argued that Lau was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda, and that Miranda does not apply to a citizen’s arrest. He wrote that Lau was not formally under arrest, was able to move about freely while talking to deputies and voluntarily answered questions.
He also argued that a Miranda warning only applies when law enforcement has taken someone into custody and requested the Motion to Suppress be denied.
“Although a citizen’s arrest under Nevada law may be an arrest, Miranda does not apply until the arrest is effectuated by a law enforcement officer,” Rye wrote.
The Notice of Appeal was filed to the Third Judicial District Court. A hearing on the matter has not yet been scheduled.
Timeline
Aug. 18 — Stan Lau arrested on a citizen’s arrest on misdemeanor charges of battery and destruction of property
Aug. 20 — Motion to transfer case to Canal Township Justice Court filed by Aaron Mouritsen
Aug. 27 — Amended motion to transfer case to Walker River Justice Court filed by Aaron Mouritsen
Nov. 14 — Order transferring jurisdiction to Fernley Municipal Court filed by Justice of the Peace Thomas Perkins
Jan. 30 — Motion to dismiss filed by Lauren Gorman, representing Lau
Feb. 3 — Motion to suppress filed by Lauren Gorman, representing Lau
Feb. 12 — Opposition to motion to dismiss filed by Steve Rye
Feb. 16 — Motion to dismiss filed by Lauren Gorman in reply to opposition
Feb. 19 — Opposition to motion to suppress statements filed by Steve Rye
Feb. 19 — Request for submission filed by Lauren Gorman
March 9 — Notice of appeal filed by Steve Rye
Comment
Comments