Vegas Police DEFY Judge—They WON’T Release HIM

Las Vegas police are openly defying a judge’s release order for a career criminal with 35 prior arrests, sparking a constitutional showdown that threatens the very foundation of judicial authority in Nevada.

Story Snapshot

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police refused to release Joshua Sanchez-Lopez despite Judge Eric Goodman’s direct order, citing public safety concerns over his 35 prior arrests including involuntary manslaughter
Judge Goodman warned Sheriff Kevin McMahill of contempt of court after police ignored multiple release orders for the defendant who posted $25,000 bail
Metro claims state law gives them discretion to reject electronic monitoring placements they deem too risky, effectively overriding judicial release decisions
The Nevada Supreme Court is now reviewing whether police can veto judges’ bail decisions, a separation of powers dispute with nationwide implications

Police Refuse Judge’s Direct Orders

Judge Eric Goodman set $25,000 bail for Joshua Sanchez-Lopez on January 13, 2026, on a grand larceny charge and ordered high-level electronic monitoring upon release. When Sanchez-Lopez posted bond on January 24, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police simply refused to let him go. Metro claimed the 36-year-old defendant posed an “unreasonable risk” based on his extensive criminal history, which includes involuntary manslaughter, drug offenses, car theft, and a documented history of fleeing from police while previously on electronic monitoring. For weeks, police kept him locked up despite a lawful court order and posted bail.

Judicial Authority Under Attack

Judge Goodman issued a second release order on February 5 and explicitly warned Metro and Sheriff McMahill they could face contempt of court for defying judicial orders. “Call me crazy, but I’m the judge. I would like to think that my orders are actual orders,” Goodman stated publicly on February 9 as Sanchez-Lopez remained in custody. Metro responded not with compliance but with emergency court filings challenging the judge’s authority to compel them to accept anyone into their electronic monitoring program. This represents a direct assault on the separation of powers—police deciding they can override judicial decisions about who gets released and under what conditions.

Constitutional Crisis Over Bail Reform

This case exposes how so-called bail reform creates dangerous power vacuums. Metro argues Nevada statutes governing electronic monitoring give them discretion to refuse placements that pose unreasonable risks to public safety or their corrections officers. Public Defender P. David Westbrook counters that Metro’s position is “flat wrong,” arguing that allowing police employees to overrule judges threatens the Constitution and rule of law. Chief Judge Melisa De La Garza warned that Metro’s de facto veto power raises serious due process and separation of powers concerns, noting judges already evaluate community safety and flight risk before setting release conditions.

Pattern of Police Overreach

The Sanchez-Lopez case is not isolated. Multiple Las Vegas judges have ordered defendants released on Metro-run electronic monitoring only to have police refuse compliance, sometimes notifying courts weeks after orders were issued. Metro maintains it is not overruling judges but merely “unable to accommodate” orders when defendants are deemed too risky under their criteria. Public defenders have sought contempt findings against Metro and filed challenges now before the Nevada Supreme Court. The institutional fight now centers on whether executive-branch police can functionally nullify judicial release decisions by controlling access to the supervision programs judges order as conditions of bail.

Workaround Exposes the Real Issue

Judge Goodman ultimately released Sanchez-Lopez through the Justice Court’s own pretrial compliance unit rather than Metro’s electronic monitoring program, a workaround that highlights the absurdity of the situation. If the defendant is too dangerous for police-run monitoring, why is he acceptable for court-run supervision? The answer reveals this is not really about public safety—it is about institutional control. Metro wants final say over who gets released, usurping a core judicial function. Sheriff McMahill declared 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,” framing judges as reckless rather than acknowledging his department is flouting lawful orders.

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

The Nevada Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision will determine whether police can effectively veto judicial bail decisions or whether judges retain constitutional authority over pretrial release. This case crystallizes the tension between legitimate public safety concerns about career criminals and the fundamental principle that courts, not cops, decide who gets released and under what conditions. While Sanchez-Lopez’s 35 arrests and violent history make him a troubling candidate for release, allowing police to override judicial orders sets a dangerous precedent that erodes the separation of powers and judicial independence that protect all citizens’ constitutional rights.