On February 5, 2009, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order reversing the decisions of a State arbitrator and a District Court judge to fire a UNLV police officer, and remanded the case back to the arbitrator to reinstate the officer and apply a lesser form of discipline.   

In September 2006, the UNLV officer was suspicious of his wife's extramarital affairs.  One night, the officer and his brother drove around looking for his wife and another man, with whom the officer believed his wife was involved.  They found the wife and the other man driving into a Walmart parking lot, and they followed them, blocking their route.  A physical altercation took place in the parking lot.  Las Vegas Metro officers were called.  The UNLV officer and his brother had already left the scene.

The officer was subsequently contacted by Metro and he voluntarily met with Metro and a UNLV Sergeant.  The officer was placed on administrative leave and eventually terminated.  At the time of his termination, the officer was a member of the Nevada State Law Enforcement Association and NAPSO's predecessor, COPS.

The officer appealed his termination to the State arbitrator, who upheld his firing.  The officer appealed that decision to the District Court, and Judge Michelle Leavitt also upheld the termination.   

On appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, the officer argued that his termination was too severe a punishment for the offense, especially in view of his stellar work record and accomplishments while employed as a UNLV police officer.  He also argued that the department violated his NRS 289 rights (Peace Officer Bill of Rights), and that the arbitrator further violated those rights by not excluding illegally obtained statements that were used against him at his hearing. 

In a unanimous decision of the 3-Judge panel, the Supreme Court focused on the fact that the officer had no prior record of discipline; he had received no negative or below standards performance evaluations; and his Chief testified that he was a good officer who had earned commendations.  The Court also considered the fact that the incident occurred off-duty and there were no criminal charges filed against the officer.  Accordingly, the Court concluded that the arbitrator's decision to fire the officer was arbitrary and capricious.  The Court stated that "no reasonable mind could concluded that termination was warranted here."   

As for the NRS 289 violations, the Supreme Court decided not to address those issues, since the Court was able to make its decision simply on the severity of the punishment.