By Hearing Commissioner Anthony Ruggiero
Since AB116 became effective, on January 1, 2023, the City of Las Vegas Municipal Court (LVMC), Traffic Court, has made every effort to maintain the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the court while continuing our practice of preserving personal and professional rights and interests.
The LVMC initially adopted Local Rules of Practice and Procedure for Traffic, as required by AB116. Among the most important was Rule 1.5 Use and Construction of the Rules. This rule established the principles and practices for LVMC judges to liberally construe our rules to “secure the proper and efficient administration of the business and affairs of the Court and to facilitate the administration of justice by the Court.” Rule 1.5.3. Additionally, whenever a judge determined that a case should not follow regular procedures, “the judge may make such orders as deemed advisable for all subsequent proceedings.” Rule 1.5.2. Accordingly, judges have broad discretion to adjudicate civil traffic infractions with relaxed rules of evidence and procedure; providing pro per parties a fair and firm judicial approach, and ensuring just treatment for all.
Traffic court functioned well and most parties appreciated the deliberate disposition of these cases as the adjudication of civil traffic infractions evolved. There were not many changes to civil traffic practice and procedure until September 2024. It was then that the Supreme Court of Nevada (NVSC) issued an Order Approving Publication of Rules for Civil Infractions for Justice and Municipal Courts, ADKT 0620. The purpose of the NVSC’s rules is to “provide for the fair, orderly, and efficient disposition” of civil traffic infractions. Rule 1.1. The rules established informal hearing procedures for justice and municipal courts.
Primary among these rules is Rule 3.1, which states: “the hearings of all cases are informal in order to dispense justice promptly and efficiently.” Again, informality is the direction given to the court, to facilitate orderly and expeditious proceedings according to notions of fundamental fairness.
Some of the other rules ordered by the NVSC are that the “state need not be represented by counsel at the hearing of a complaint” Rule 2.6, and that “appearances at hearings for civil infractions are presumptively virtual.” Rule 3.3. To date, this court has held several hearings without a Deputy City Attorney present and has utilized an Officer’s Sworn Affidavit, in lieu of testimony, per NRS 484A.615. This statute allows “a peace officer…to submit a written statement under oath…in lieu of his or her personal appearance at the hearing.” The court has also scheduled virtual civil traffic hearings and anticipates parties utilizing this option more frequently.
While the burden of proof for civil infractions is preponderance of the evidence, this writer believes that most parties in civil traffic hearings leave satisfied. The parties appreciate that their rights and interests are respected, they received a fair and just opportunity to be heard, and an independent, impartial, and unbiased disposition is returned.
About the author
Hearing Commissioner Anthony Ruggiero was appointed to the City of Las Vegas Municipal Court – Department 20 on April 15, 2024. Prior to his appointment, Commissioner Ruggiero was a Deputy City Attorney with the City of Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office – Criminal Division.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (June/July 2025), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2025/communique-june-july-2025/. The printed magazine was mailed to CCBA members on June 6, 2025.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2025 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.