Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Accuses LVMPD and ‘Metro Mullet’ Officer of Excessive Force in Downtown Stop

LAS VEGAS, NV — The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and an officer popularized across social media as “Metro Mullet” are facing a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging excessive force, unlawful detention, and Fourth Amendment violations stemming from a traffic stop and arrest in downtown Las Vegas.

The complaint—filed on behalf of Clark County resident Tellez—accuses the department and the officer of deploying unreasonable and retaliatory physical force during a routine confrontation.

According to court filings submitted in federal district court, the plaintiff alleges that during the encounter, the officer pointed a firearm directly at his head before forcibly throwing and slamming him onto the pavement.

The legal filing details that Tellez suffered severe physical injuries, including substantial contusions and tissue trauma across his left upper chest and shoulder.

The complaint further asserts that when an independent bystander approached the public encounter with a video camera to document the arrest, assisting officers detained the civilian observer.

The civil complaint brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, and municipal liability regarding supervisory oversight.

+--------------------------------------------------------+
|        FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION DOSSIER         |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
|  - Forum: U.S. District Court, District of Nevada      |
|  - Defendants: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.     |
|    (LVMPD) & Downtown Patrol Officer ("Metro Mullet")  |
|  - Plaintiff: Clark County Resident Tellez             |
|  - Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force,|
|    Unlawful Seizure, Fourth Amendment Violations)      |
|  - Allegations: Gun Drawn to Head, Body Slam to Ground,|
|    Detention of Bystander Filming Police Conduct       |
|  - Documented Injuries: Significant Bruising to Left   |
|    Upper Chest & Shoulder; Soft-Tissue Trauma          |
|  - Department Context: 849 Uses of Non-Deadly Force    |
|    Documented by LVMPD in Most Recent Reporting Year   |
+--------------------------------------------------------+

Scrutiny on Non-Deadly Force and Street Encounters

The litigation highlights department-wide non-lethal force trends across Clark County.

While LVMPD’s officer-involved shootings dropped to seven in 2025—falling well below the agency’s five-year average of 11.6—the department documented 849 uses of non-deadly force, marking the highest total recorded across the five-year tracking window.

Civil rights attorneys note that the rise in non-deadly physical encounters underscores growing tension during routine street and traffic stops in high-density areas like the Fremont East Entertainment District and the Cultural Corridor.

“The authority to use force is strictly constrained by objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment,” legal advocates stated regarding the filing.

“Pointing a lethal firearm at an unarmed motorist’s head and executing physical takedowns during a non-violent encounter exceeds statutory boundaries.“

Litigation Timetable and Departmental Response

LVMPD maintains a strict policy of declining comment on active and pending civil litigation.

+--------------------------------------------------------+
|             UPCOMING FEDERAL COURT BENCHMARKS          |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
|  • Summons & Response: LVMPD General Counsel formal    |
|    answer or motion to dismiss deadline                |
|  • Body-Worn Camera Discovery: Mandatory preservation   |
|    and disclosure of AXON camera video and audio files |
|  • Internal Affairs Review: Cross-examination of use-  |
|    of-force review board findings and officer logs     |
|  • Civil Scheduling Order: Rule 16 discovery track     |
+--------------------------------------------------------+

The lawsuit demands compensatory damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering, punitive damages against the individual officer, and attorneys’ fees.

Source: U.S. District Court (District of Nevada) Civil Filings, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Use-of-Force Annual Review Telemetry.