Las Vegas police are openly defying a judge’s release order for a career criminal with 35 prior arrests, sparking a constitutional showdown over whether law enforcement can override judicial authority and keep defendants locked up against a court’s explicit command.
Story Snapshot
- Las Vegas Metro Police refused to release 36-year-old Joshua Sanchez-Lopez despite a judge’s order granting him bail with electronic monitoring after his 35th arrest.
- Judge Eric Goodman warned Sheriff Kevin McMahill of potential contempt of court for defying the release order, declaring “I’m the judge. I would like to think that my orders are actual orders.”
- Metro claims Nevada law gives them discretion to reject defendants deemed an “unreasonable risk,” effectively vetoing judicial release decisions.
- The battle has escalated to the Nevada Supreme Court, raising fundamental questions about separation of powers and whether police can usurp core judicial functions.
Judge Orders Release, Police Say No
Justice of the Peace Eric Goodman set bail at $25,000 for Joshua Sanchez-Lopez on a grand larceny of a motor vehicle charge in January 2026 and ordered high-level electronic monitoring upon release. Sanchez-Lopez posted bond on January 24, but Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department refused to execute the release, citing his extensive criminal history including involuntary manslaughter, drug offenses, and car theft. Metro declared him an “unreasonable risk” too dangerous for their electronic monitoring program, effectively nullifying the judge’s decision and keeping Sanchez-Lopez behind bars despite meeting the court-ordered conditions for release.
Contempt Threat Escalates Constitutional Crisis
Judge Goodman issued a second order on February 5 directing Sanchez-Lopez’s release by the next day and warned Metro and Sheriff McMahill they could face contempt of court for disobeying judicial orders. By February 9, Sanchez-Lopez remained in custody, prompting Goodman’s public rebuke: “Call me crazy, but I’m the judge. I would like to think that my orders are actual orders.” Metro responded with emergency court filings challenging the judge’s authority to compel use of their electronic monitoring program. This represents a stunning assertion by law enforcement that they possess veto power over judicial release decisions, a claim that fundamentally undermines the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.
Police Claim Statutory Authority to Override Courts
Metro argues Nevada statutes governing its electronic monitoring program grant the department discretion to determine whether placing a defendant on that program poses an “unreasonable risk to public safety.” Sheriff McMahill stated he “will not violate the law to assist those few judges who seek to use LVMPD’s electronic monitoring program in disregard of public safety.” Metro emphasizes Sanchez-Lopez’s history of failing to appear and running from police while on electronic monitoring in a prior incident. However, this position effectively allows an executive-branch agency to perform risk assessments and detention decisions that are core judicial functions, raising serious constitutional concerns about government overreach into the judiciary’s domain.
Pattern of Defiance Extends Beyond One Case
The Sanchez-Lopez case is not isolated. Multiple Las Vegas judges have ordered defendants released on Metro-run electronic monitoring only to have Metro refuse to follow those orders, sometimes notifying courts weeks later that release orders would not be honored. Chief Judge Melisa De La Garza of Las Vegas Justice Court publicly stated that Metro’s de facto veto power raises due process and separation of powers concerns, noting judges already evaluate community safety, likelihood of court appearance, and statutory risk assessment tools before setting release conditions. Public Defender P. David Westbrook called Metro’s position “flat wrong,” warning that allowing a Metro employee to overrule a judge’s release order threatens the Constitution and rule of law.
Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Judicial Authority
The conflict has reached the Nevada Supreme Court, where both Metro and the Clark County Public Defender’s Office have filed competing challenges. Metro’s petition challenges judges’ authority to compel use of its electronic monitoring program, while public defenders seek contempt findings and enforcement of court orders. The high court will determine whether law enforcement agencies can independently decide not to place a defendant on electronic monitoring even when a judge orders it, and what limits exist on police discretion over pretrial supervision tools. This case will establish critical precedent on whether executive agencies can encroach on core judicial functions, a question with implications far beyond Nevada for the constitutional separation of powers that protects citizens from government tyranny.
Las Vegas police in legal fight with judge who ordered the release of a suspect with 35 arrests https://t.co/Zhm98eHa7q
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) March 16, 2026
Judge Goodman ultimately allowed Sanchez-Lopez’s release under the Justice Court’s own pretrial compliance unit rather than Metro’s program, providing a temporary workaround but leaving the fundamental constitutional questions unresolved. The outcome of this legal battle will determine whether judges retain their constitutional role as the final authority on pretrial release decisions, or whether police can effectively veto those decisions based on their own risk assessments, creating a dangerous precedent for law enforcement override of judicial authority across the criminal justice system.
Sources:
Las Vegas Judge and Police Clash Over Releasing Violent Repeat Offender
Judges and Police Clash Over Electronic Monitoring Releases
In Dispute Over Electronic Monitoring Releases, Are Police Flouting Court Orders?
Vegas Cops Buck Judge, Refuse to Free Accused Violent Offender
