9. Change rules in favor of sparks in the city, which are connected to GPS tracking Local news

The 9th Appeals Group decided in favor of the city of the Sparks after a private detective claimed that his constitutional changes were violated.

On November 20, 2023, David Mcneely submitted a federal action in which the city of the Sparks and certain Sparks Police Department (SPD) violated its rights of the first and fourth change and deliberately caused him emotional distress when he was in a GPS persecution with the Mayor of Reno Mayor in the GPS during an examination of a potential stalking. -Collung success authorities was found.

A district judge granted the city's application to dismiss the case in May 2024.

McNeely then submitted an appeal to the ninth appeal court, and this court of appeal confirmed the prior dismissal of dismissal in a memorandum disposition of April 22, 2025 (Read below)

The ninth circuit agreed that McNeely “no recognizable legal theory claimed that the first change made it possible for him a right to privacy in the context of this case,” and found that it did not “give a” causal connection between a retaliation animus of [the City] and his alleged injuries. “

According to the city of the Sparks, the court came to the conclusion that the alleged facts were not a violation of the fourth change or a claim to deliberate inflammation of emotional stress according to the law of Nevada, and confirmed that a change in the complaint would have been unsuccessful.

Update, April 10:

The Supreme Court of Nevada unanimously decided that the first change application “John Doe” did not protect in the GPS persecution.

March 8:

The Supreme Court of Nevada will hear oral arguments next month, in one case with the mayor of Reno, Hillary Schieve.

The person who supposedly hired a private investigator to place a GPS tracker in the mayor's car is still trying to keep their identity hidden.

We have been following this case since 2022.

According to court documents, the client continues to argue the protection of the first drain, while Schieve claims the data protection violations.

Last year we reported how the judges had put themselves on the side of a district court that the private detective had to reveal the name of their customer.

Arguments are set for April 8th.