Nevada bill would require clearer written notice, 48-hour warning for officers in internal probes

Senate Bill 279, introduced to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on May 2, 2025, would require law enforcement agencies to include a specific description of alleged misconduct and the date, time and location of the alleged conduct in written notices given to peace officers in internal investigations.

Supporters said the change would restore the intent of the Nevada Peace Officers Bill of Rights and prevent what they described as surprise, broad-scope questions during interrogations. "Either of these examples is completely unfair. They were an ambush and resulted in discipline that is now challenged through court costly arbitration," said Andrew Reigenbaum, executive director of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, describing cases in which officers were questioned about events not described in written notice.

The bill would also clarify that witness officers — not just subject officers — must receive at least 48 hours' written notice before compelled interviews. "Originally the drafters of 289 intended for subject officers and witness officers to be given 48 hours' notice," Reigenbaum told the committee, adding that the change would protect an officer's right to representation.

Senator Julie Pizzina, who introduced SB 279, framed the measure as restoring due-process protections in NRS chapter 289. "This bill aims to enhance transparency and fairness in the investigative process for peace officers," she said when presenting the measure.

Representatives of several statewide law-enforcement associations and local agencies testified in support. Joshua Martinez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said the department worked with the sponsor on the current language and supports extending the 48-hour notice to witness officers. Jason Lesher of the Washoe County Sheriff Deputies Association and other coalition representatives said the 48-hour minimum is workable and that agencies generally accommodate additional scheduling needs.

Proponents gave concrete examples of the problem the bill intends to fix: an officer notified only about an alleged nepotism violation but later questioned about unrelated computer misuse; another provided notice about a single traffic stop but was then questioned about several other stops from later months and later disciplined for an event he had not expected to be questioned about.

Supporters argued the statute already allows agencies to stop an interview and re-notice an officer if new allegations arise, and that SB 279 only requires agencies to be more precise in their initial notices. "If new or additional information is discovered during an interview, NRS 289 already has provisions to stop the interview, give the officer a new notice, and restart a new interview with new allegations," Reigenbaum said.

No neutral or opposition witnesses appeared in person or by telephone during the committee hearing; the record before the committee consisted of sponsor remarks, association testimony in support and public comment in favor. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing.

If enacted, the bill would amend the notice provisions in NRS 289.060 (the Peace Officers Bill of Rights) to require that a written notice specify the "acts or omissions constituting the alleged misconduct" and provide date, time and location, in addition to making clear the 48-hour notice applies to witness officers.

Supporters said the change would reduce arbitration and litigation costs by reducing procedural objections to investigative processes. Critics (noting examples in other states) have previously raised concerns about the operational consequences of additional notice requirements, but no opposition testimony was recorded at this hearing.

SB 279 will proceed through the committee process for further consideration; the committee did not produce a final action on the bill during this session.