Quid pro quo? The Sheriff and Bob Lucey
Picon Press was recently alerted to what appears to be an ethical violation regarding services provided to County Commissioner Bob Lucey by Sheriff Darin Balaam. As our readers know, this is not the first reporting we have done that exposed disparate treatment provided to Mr. Lucey by the Sheriff. We have seen what appears to be an on-going quid pro quo relationship between Commissioner Lucey and Sheriff Balaam.
As we reported, on April 19, 2022, Mr. Lucey attended a hearing at District Court, in Reno, Nevada related to a lawsuit he filed against Mike Clark, alleging Clark was ineligible to run for office. As a sitting commissioner, Mr. Lucey had access to the Sheriff and Court Administration, and he used that access to garner special attention that the general public does not receive. In our reporting, we established, through video and documentary evidence the following:
Bob Lucey was escorted through a secure, non-public entrance, thus avoiding the essential security checks that are required for everyone else. (Our readers may recall that Kitty Jung complained about having to be screened in the past and she was told “everyone” goes through screening)
Bob Lucey was then escorted down the hallway in a secret service style escort with three on-duty armed deputy sheriffs.
Mike Clark, the sitting Assessor, elected by the whole county, was given no such special treatment, and instead was seated at the respondent table when he was stunned to see Mr. Lucey escorted into the court room through a side door, right in front of his table, and Lucey was then flanked by deputies as he sat down just as the hearing began.
When Picon Press viewed the videos and asked the Sheriff for a comment on what was seen, there was no response. The Sheriff was apparently content to approve and condone this disparate treatment as evidenced by his silence. After all, the budget of the Sheriff is controlled by the commission, best not to bite the hand that feeds.
Undeterred, Picon Press obtained email and other correspondence regarding the genesis of Mr. Lucey’s high security escort. Sadly, that information failed to produce any intelligence that would have supported such security measures, and in-fact was spawned by nothing more than rumors that many people might show up at the court in support of Mike Clark. Apparently, that is a security threat. And in fact, there was no show of force for Mike Clark, no hecklers, no threats. The deputies knew this when they escorted Lucey into the court.
The purpose of revisiting the courthouse reporting is to frame the new story for our readers and show, in the clearest possible way, that Bob Lucey gets special treatment. This special treatment however may expose violations of ethics laws in the State of Nevada.
A New Disparity
On December 09, 2020, the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office sent a deputy and a detective to the Berkich Lucey Law Group, located at 150 West Huffaker, in the City of Reno. The report was initiated by deputies, meaning there is no normal call into the dispatch center asking for the police to come, instead this deputy and detective were sent there by someone. Picon noticed immediately that this style of response is unusual, as most crimes are reported by someone and a call for service is initiated. No such record exists for this response.
When the deputy and detective arrived, they were met by Bob Lucey. He was reporting that while he and his wife, Megan, were in Mexico, their staff member, Ashley Hefner had resigned. She was left in charge while Bob, Megan and the other partner were in Mexico. Upon return to the country, Bob, Megan and their partner went to the office and quickly found they had been the victims of embezzlement. In just a few days of looking, Bob reported to the deputies that the firm was missing $40,000.00. According to the report, Ashley had made off with much more and the passwords had been changed to their accounts.
The law firm engaged a CPA and a Forensic Account and learned that their loss was nearly $117,000.00 from the trust account. Attorneys are required to maintain a trust account for their clients’ funds, which is referred to as the IOLTA or Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts. These are critical accounts; in fact, the Nevada Bar has oversight and can fine or otherwise discipline attorneys for violating the terms and conditions related to the IOLTA accounting.
Also reported in the police document was the claim that a string of text messages between Ashley, Bob and Megan were mysteriously missing from Bob and Megan’s phones. It would not be until January 29, 2021, that the Lucey’s would get the Sheriff’s Office their written statements and bank account information. There is no written statement from Bob Lucey, despite the police reports representation that Bob Lucey was the one describing the theft to the deputies. The case then mysteriously ended.
Picon Press reached out to the Sheriff’s records area, only to learn that the Reno Police Department had arrested Ashley. We found the court records from the Reno Justice Court indicating that Ashley had been arrested by the Reno Police Department on December 09, 2021, one year to the day of the initial report.
Picon Press reached out to Ashley and asked for comment, she referred us to her attorney, Ken Lyon. We reached out to Ken Lyon for comment with no response. We reached out to Bob Lucey with no response. We asked Megan Lucey with no response. We asked the District Attorney for clarification as to a memorandum issued to Bob Lucey when his wife first applied for a government grant that had to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners, however the DA said we are not their client, and they cannot comment further. We asked the Sheriff and his two public information officers for comment. We heard back from one, Mr. Samudio, a former journalist, indicating that he was trying to find someone to provide us the information we sought. We suggest he ask the Sheriff.
Although we are still awaiting further documentary evidence and body camera footage, this matter can be distilled down to this so far: Bob Lucey got special treatment by the Sheriff, again. The evidence to support this is as follows:
The Berkich Lucey Law Group is in the city of Reno. The Reno Police Department has the responsibility of handling any criminal matter that occurs at this address. If they call 911, the police come, not the Sheriff.
While the average citizen gets to call dispatch and report their crimes, Bob Lucey apparently calls the Sheriff and is quickly given a deputy and a detective, what service!
Bob Lucey has previously intimated that he is not involved in his wife’s law firm, specifically due to her receipt of the Federal VOCA grant funds, which are approved by the Board of County Commissioners. He clearly is involved.
Past tense embezzlements are normally not field reports, they are taken at the desk or some other method of reporting because they are complex and not emergent matters, thus freeing deputies to respond to more critical matters.
The City of Reno normally does not adopt cases that another agency initiated, collected evidence on and otherwise handled for well over a month. Picon Press has yet to see the communications that occurred between the Sheriff and the Police, however if the reason for transferring the case was a conflict, that conflict existed and was known on December 09, 2020, by any rational person.
Bob Lucey and the commission control the budget of the Sheriff. Therefore, Bob Lucey’s position as a commissioner forbids him from receiving unwarranted privilege or preference and surely negates any special exceptions he may receive from the Sheriff. Any average citizen, who lives in the City of Reno or Sparks, cannot have a deputy and detective respond to their past-tense theft. The citizen will never make it past the dispatch center because the address is not in the Sheriff’s primary response jurisdiction. We encourage any of our readers to try and report back.
In addition, Picon Press has reviewed the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) regarding public officials and their ethical standards, finding that Bob Lucey may have violated the law and the Sheriff may have knowingly been a party to a violation. We offer the following excerpt from NRS 281A.400 to support this potential exposure:
CODE OF ETHICAL STANDARDS
NRS 281A.400
2. A public officer or employee shall not use the public officer’s or employee’s position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for the public officer or employee, any business entity in which the public officer or employee has a significant pecuniary interest or any person to whom the public officer or employee has a commitment in a private capacity. As used in this subsection, “unwarranted” means without justification or adequate reason.
5. If a public officer or employee acquires, through the public officer’s or employee’s public duties or relationships, any information which by law or practice is not at the time available to people generally, the public officer or employee shall not use the information to further a significant pecuniary interest of the public officer or employee or any other person or business entity.
Picon Press is still awaiting critical communications that may shed further sunlight on what appears to be favoritism, special treatment, and privilege for Bob Lucey. We are also exploring whether the Nevada BAR is aware of the breech of the IOLTA accounts and how the revelation of Bob Lucey’s involvement in his wife’s law firm may impact the VOCA grant she receives. We are also on the trail of who tipped the court off to the claim of mass attendance at the Lucey-Clark hearing, and it appears to be underhanded politics at work.
We expect much more reporting on this on-going investigation.