Charges against judge dismissed

Justice of the Peace Doug Smith claimed vindication after his hearing before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline ended with the charges being dismissed in a last-minute settlement.

The six-member commission was unable to agree Thursday whether the judge abused his authority by jailing two people involved in a landlord-tenant dispute on contempt of court charges two years ago.

To resolve the dispute after a two-day hearing at the Las Vegas Convention Center, the commission offered to drop the charges if Smith agreed to admit he had not specified in a written order the reasons he sent the landlord and her eviction agent to jail. Such detail is required under Nevada law.

Smith also must attend a course on ethics involving contempt of court rulings.

In his testimony Thursday, Smith admitted that he didn't make an adequate court record about the events he determined had justified his punitive actions against Ruby Simon-Anderson and eviction agent Jack Ruggles.

Smith added that he already has signed up for two ethics classes as part of his annually required legal education courses at the National Judicial College in Reno.

Smith said the compromise end to the controversial dispute, "is a declaration that I never violated ethical rules ... I absolutely think this exonerates me."

His attorney Bill Terry, agreed. "It's a complete vindication," said Terry, who had argued that the commission shouldn't even be deciding the matter because it involved issues of law, not ethical issues. He said the case should have gone to an appeals court.

But the commission decided that questions about the jailing of two people who seemingly had conceded to follow Smith's court order warranted a hearing. The commission has the power to sanction judges or even remove them from office.

The pair had been ordered to return furniture and other property belonging to Suzette Davoult and her two children that had been packed up and put into storage by Ruggles' Smart Evictions company from a rental home owned by Simon-Anderson.

Devoult had been evicted from the home but contested the legality of the eviction and the seizure of her belongings. Testimony at the hearing indicated Devoult had attempted to retrieve her property before Ruggles became involved, but Simon-Anderson did not return telephone calls.

Smith upheld the eviction but ordered the property returned within three days of the May 15, 1997, court hearing after he said he determined that Simon-Anderson had misled him about details leading to the confiscation of the belongings.

But after an argument outside Smith's courtroom moments later between Ruggles and Devoult's attorney, Thomas Pitaro, over whether the property was ever going to be returned, the judge brought the case back into court.

Smith testified that he concluded from the "defiance" exhibited by Ruggles and Simon-Anderson that there was no intent to follow his order, although the pair conceded they would do what was required.

He ordered them jailed until they took steps to return the property, which was done two days later.

Smith explained that much of the defiance was exhibited through their facial expressions and posturing. He admitted that he didn't state his observations for the court record, leaving only the words spoken by Ruggles and Simon-Anderson to memorialize the events.

The judge's observations, however, were supported by deputy district attorneys Vicki Monroe and Doug Herndon, who were in court for an unrelated case.

Both termed the pair "evasive" and Monroe said she was not surprised they were held in contempt of court. Herndon added that he was surprised they weren't jailed sooner than they were.

But some commission members indicated they were concerned that Smith acted prematurely and suggested he could have waited until after the deadline to return the property to initiate contempt charges.

Smith explained that he believed the return of the property was an emergency situation because the Devoult family had virtually none of their belongings and there was concern that the items would somehow become lost if the judge didn't push the issue.

Although he lamented having to endure the ordeal, Smith said it "has made me a better judge because I'm more reflective on my decisions."

"I'm sorry that the people had to go to jail," the judge said. "It's never pleasant to go to jail or pleasant to put someone in jail. But I'm happy the tenant got her property back."

archive