In a troubling incident that highlights ongoing tensions between law enforcement and protest movements, a woman named Karlin Martinez is taking legal action against the Las Vegas police. Martinez alleges that officers tackled and arrested her during an anti-ICE protest on June 11, 2023, when she was livestreaming the events unfolding near the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse. This lawsuit raises crucial questions about the treatment of citizens exercising their rights to protest and record public officials.
The complaint, filed by the Clear Counsel Law Group, outlines a series of events leading up to Martinez’s arrest. As a group of 15 officers passed by, Martinez was approached by Sgt. Frederick Oliveri, who reportedly mocked her and another livestreamer, Cesar Corrales. Oliveri’s words—“Don’t you got something better to do?”—ignited a verbal exchange that would ultimately escalate into a physical confrontation.
Corrales, who has a history of confrontations with police, responded to Oliveri’s taunt by challenging the officer’s integrity: “How about honor your oath? Honor your oath, b——.” This exchange set the stage for what Martinez’s lawsuit claims was an unjustified response from the police, particularly as Oliveri ordered officers to arrest both Martinez and Corrales, linking them merely by their physical presence next to one another.
The lawsuit alleges that during the arrest, Oliveri exhibited unprofessional behavior, shouting at Martinez after tackling her. She repeatedly expressed, “I’m not resisting,” indicating her compliance in the situation. However, the complaint states that Oliveri’s rationale was solely based on the association he perceived between Martinez and Corrales due to the latter’s comments. This perceived association raises questions regarding the legality and ethicality of the police’s actions.
Clear Counsel argues that the words spoken by Martinez and Corrales did not constitute any form of disrespectful or offensive behavior deserving of arrest. Legal experts have noted that the arrests appeared to be retaliatory, violating constitutional rights—a point that casts a shadow over police conduct during protests, where freedom of speech is often tested.
Notably, during the protest, the majority of the 800 attendees were reportedly peaceful, in stark contrast to Metro’s later statements that accused protesters of blocking roads and vandalizing property. This discrepancy raises concerns about police narratives and the treatment of citizens, particularly those exercising their First Amendment rights.
A significant element of the lawsuit involves the timeline of the events. At around 9 p.m., Metro declared the protest an unlawful assembly, although Martinez claims not to have seen any dispersal order communicated online. The lawsuit mentions that, aside from brief equipment adjustments, Martinez continuously livestreamed her activities, revealing no mention of a dispersal order during that footage.
Interestingly, Martinez interacted amicably with several police officers earlier that same evening, yet they failed to notify her of any dispersal order. In a poignant moment just before her arrest, she encouraged her TikTok audience to remain peaceful and avoid confrontation—a stark contrast to the outcome of the event.
As the situation escalated, Martinez was reportedly pushed to the ground despite informing the officers of her serious heart issues. After being handcuffed, she required medical attention, prompting concerns about the use of force employed by the police. Martinez was arrested on charges of failure to disperse and provoking a breach of the peace, yet she was not among the four individuals ultimately prosecuted out of the 94 arrests made that night.
The lawsuit names not only the Metropolitan Police Department and Sgt. Oliveri but also arresting officer Hunter Whiteford and ten unidentified officers. The claims include violations of her rights to assemble peacefully, to document police activities, and to free speech. Furthermore, it alleges that excessive force was employed against her and points to a broader issue of police accountability.
In seeking justice, the complaint demands a declaration that Martinez’s rights were violated under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, citing the need for the police department to rectify its policies and practices. It requests damages exceeding $15,000 for each of the multiple causes of action, alongside punitive damages and coverage for legal fees, including a jury trial.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case underscores the complex dynamics between law enforcement and civil liberties, provoking wider discussions about policing practices in public settings, particularly during protests.
For more information regarding this case or to follow its developments, interested parties can contact Akiya Dillon at the Las Vegas Review-Journal.