Application of NRS 289.555: Sealed Domestic Violence Convictions Disqualify Peace Officers

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Nevada’s April 1, 2025 decision in State of Nevada ex rel. Aaron D. Ford v. The Fifth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada; and Nicholas C. Dondero, Esmeralda County Sheriff. The State sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to grant summary judgment in its quo warranto action and remove Sheriff Dondero from office. Dondero, elected in November 2022, had a sealed 2007 misdemeanor conviction for battery constituting domestic violence. In October 2023 the Legislature amended NRS 289.555 to disqualify any person with such a conviction—sealed or expunged—from serving as a peace officer. The district court denied summary judgment, citing factual complexity and due-process concerns. The Supreme Court granted the writ, clarified statutory interpretation principles, and ordered Dondero’s removal from office.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Supreme Court held that the 2023 amendment to NRS 289.555 operates prospectively and explicitly disqualifies individuals with past domestic violence convictions—regardless of sealing or expungement—from serving as peace officers.

2. POST regulations preexisting the amendment also authorize refusal of certification to candidates with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions.

3. Because Dondero’s sealed conviction renders him ineligible for POST certification under both the amended statute and NAC regulations, he cannot meet the requirement of NRS 248.005(3) to earn certification within one year or forfeit office.

4. The district court’s reliance on NRCP 56(f) to deny summary judgment was a manifest abuse of discretion: neither the cited “complexities” nor due-process objections altered the undisputed statutory disqualification.

5. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, directed the district court to vacate its denial of summary judgment, and enter judgment ordering Dondero’s ouster via writ of quo warranto.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Scarbo v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 125 Nev. 118 (2009): Defines writ of mandamus as relief to compel performance of statutory duty or correct manifest abuse of discretion.
Redeker v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 122 Nev. 164 (2006): Establishes mandamus jurisdiction where discretion was exercised arbitrarily.
State v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927 (2011): Equates “manifest abuse of discretion” with clearly erroneous interpretation or application of law.
ANSE, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 124 Nev. 862 (2008): Recognizes exceptions to the general rule against mandamus review of orders denying summary judgment when no genuine factual dispute exists.
Sandpointe Apartments v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. 813 (2013): Reviews retroactivity of statutes de novo and articulates the presumption against retroactive application.
Application of Filippini, 66 Nev. 17 (1949): Defines vested rights and their protection against retroactive statutes.
Public Employees’ Benefits Program v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 124 Nev. 138 (2008): Illustrates that absent a vested right, legislative changes affecting financial obligations do not operate retroactively.
Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724 (2005): Reaffirms that substantive law controls whether factual disputes are material for summary judgment purposes.

Legal Reasoning

Mandamus Standard: The Court confirmed its authority to issue a writ of mandamus when a lower court clearly misinterprets or misapplies governing law, especially where material facts are undisputed and summary judgment is clearly required.

Statutory Interpretation and Retroactivity: Nevada courts presume statutes operate prospectively unless legislative intent for retroactivity is explicit. The Court held that the amendment to NRS 289.555, effective October 1, 2023, does not impair any vested right of Dondero because his tenure was always contingent on obtaining POST certification under NRS 248.005. Moreover, the plain language of NRS 289.555(1)(b) contemplates past convictions and places no temporal cutoff for sealing or expungement.

POST Regulations and Due Process: NAC 289.290 and NAC 289.110 independently authorized POST to deny certification to candidates with domestic violence convictions. The Court rejected any due-process defect in POST’s August 2023 notice, clarifying that the procedural protections in NAC 289.290(4) apply to revocation of certification, not to initial certification eligibility determinations.

Quo Warranto Relief: Under NRS 35.010 and NRS 35.120, a writ of quo warranto ousts anyone “unlawfully holding or exercising a public office.” Because Dondero’s sealed conviction disqualifies him as a peace officer, his continued service as sheriff is unlawful and subject to removal.

Impact

1. Peace Officer Qualifications: This decision cements that any domestic violence conviction—sealed or not—forever disqualifies an individual from holding a peace officer position in Nevada. Sealing does not restore eligibility under NRS 289.555(1)(b).

2. Legislative Clarity: The Court’s analysis clarifies how to interpret amendments that reference past conduct and reinforces the prospective application principle absent explicit retroactivity language.

3. Use of Mandamus in Election-Related Disputes: By granting mandamus review of a summary-judgment denial, the Court signals willingness to expedite resolution of high-stakes office-holding disputes where no factual controversies exist.

4. Sealing Statutes Under Scrutiny: Though sealing generally restricts public access to conviction records, this ruling confirms that sealing cannot override express statutory disqualifications rooted in public safety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: An extraordinary remedy compelling a lower court or public official to perform a duty required by law or to correct an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.
Quo Warranto: A civil action to challenge a person’s right to hold a public office. If successful, the court orders the officeholder’s removal.
Summary Judgment (NRCP 56): A procedural device allowing disposal of claims when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Retroactivity vs. Prospective Application: Statutes are presumed to apply only to future events unless the legislature clearly indicates intent to affect vested rights or past actions.
Sealed Conviction: A conviction that is removed from public record and treated as if it never occurred for most purposes. However, statutes may expressly override sealing for eligibility or disqualification criteria.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Nevada’s decision in State v. District Court (Dondero) establishes a clear and enforceable principle: any conviction for domestic violence—regardless of sealing or expungement—permanently disqualifies an individual from serving as a peace officer under NRS 289.555. By granting a writ of mandamus and directing removal of Sheriff Dondero, the Court underscored the legislative judgment that public safety interests override the rehabilitative purpose of sealing statutes in the context of law enforcement service. This ruling clarifies statutory interpretation standards, confirms the limits of sealing for certain public-safety disqualifications, and signals that Nevada’s highest court will expedite resolution in office-holding disputes when no substantive factual issues remain.