A nurse volunteering her time at the 2022 Burning Man festival in northern Nevada is alleging in a lawsuit that she was unlawfully detained while trying to help a festival attendee.

When Hannah Hoekstra, a registered nurse, was paged to help a woman who was requesting help after what the lawsuit described as “a discomforting encounter” with a male festival-goer in his private tent, Hoekstra ultimately found herself placed in handcuffs by deputies from the Pershing County Sheriff’s Office, according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Aug. 31.

“There’s just no excuse for something like this to happen, and while it would be fortunate to believe that this is a rarity, it is in fact all too common,” said Nathan Lawrence, Hoekstra’s attorney.

Hoekstra, a forensic nurse who had previously collaborated with the sheriff’s office, was a seasoned volunteer at the festival, according to the lawsuit. As a volunteer nurse, she wore a yellow shirt with the words “EMERGENCY SERVICES” on it.

Deputy told to handcuff her, lawsuit says

On Aug. 31, 2022, Hoekstra was speaking privately with a woman who had asked for help when a plain-clothed deputy from the Pershing County Sheriff’s Office named Donna Robinson requested to come into the tent where the pair were speaking, the lawsuit said.

When the woman indicated to Hoekstra that she didn’t wish to speak with Deputy Robinson, Hoekstra left the tent to explain the situation to Robinson.

The lawsuit said that Robinson told Hoekstra that if the patient did not want to speak with law enforcement, she would have to “tell me that herself on my [bodyworn] camera.”

Robinson then told Hoekstra that if she and the patient didn’t tell her what was “going on right now,” Hoekstra would be “arrested for obstruction of my investigation,” according to the lawsuit.

When Hoekstra requested to speak with her own supervisor, Robinson instructed another deputy, only named as Deputy Boyer in the lawsuit, to detain and handcuff her.

As Hoekstra was being “dragged away,” the patient she had been helping reportedly called out “What are you doing? That woman was helping me!”

A Bureau of Land Management officer identified in the lawsuit only as Ranger P. Zoltovetz reportedly assisted in detaining Hoekstra. Bystanders filming the event were allegedly told by officers, according to the lawsuit, that the sheriff’s office would need the video for Hoekstra’s “prosecution.”

After nearly 40 minutes, Hoekstra was eventually released without any criminal charges or citations, the lawsuit said.

Constitutional rights ‘disregarded’

“Violation of a constitutional right is not a small thing,” Lawrence said, “particularly when, as a society, we are compelled to put our trust into law enforcement for our protection and for protection of our civil rights.”

According to Lawrence and the lawsuit, since the incident, Hoekstra has been diagnosed and treated for PTSD.

While still working as a nurse, Hoekstra no longer works in forensic nursing because of the “mental anguish and emotional distress” from the alleged unlawful detention.

Changing the scope of her work to exclude forensic nursing “detrimentally affected her career trajectory,” the lawsuit said.

Lawrence said that rather than supporting a fellow first responder, officers from the Pershing County Sheriff’s Office and the Bureau of Land Management “completely disregarded” Hoekstra’s constitutional rights in an “entirely unnecessary event.”

There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion existing that would have allowed officers to detain Hoekstra, Lawrence said. Neither the sheriff’s office nor BLM responded to requests for comment.

“At least anecdotally, there is evidence of this type of behavior increasing somewhat, particularly in the state of Nevada, across a variety of law enforcement agencies,” Lawrence said.

In Southern Nevada, Metropolitan Police Department Sgt. Kevin Menon was arrested Aug. 30 on suspicion of a “pattern of unlawful detentions,” according to an arrest report.

Lawrence said that unlawful detention not only harms the individual victim, but “it’s a harm to society, and that’s a big part of what we’re trying to resolve.”

Contact Estelle Atkinson at eatkinson@reviewjournal.com. Follow @estellelilym on X and @estelleatkinsonreports on Instagram.

Nevada Democrats have been working on “saving democracy” by filing lawsuits to kick potential challengers to Kamala Harris off the presidential ballot.

Last month, facing a Democrat-led lawsuit, RFK Jr. opted to remove his independent candidacy from the ballot after reaching an agreement with state Democrats. Today, state Democrats were victorious in their lawsuit against the Green Party and their candidate Dr. Jill Stein who has previously appeared on the ballot in 2012 and 2016.

Despite the Secretary of State providing the wrong language, the Green Party failed to sway the court’s majority to their defense.

In a 5-2 decision released today (see below), the Nevada Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and found that the Green Party’s petition contained the wrong affidavit language, thereby invalidating the estimated 30,000 signatures they had collected to appear on the November ballot. “The Green Party’s failure to use the correct circulator affidavit cannot be excused by the Green Party’s reliance on the sample petition received from the Secretary,” the ruling states.

The two dissenting justices Kristina Pickering and Douglas Herndon wrote that the majority’s decision violated the Green Party’s due process rights and were “deeply concerned that our decision today excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State’s office that will result in a significant injustice.”

In a statement, the Secretary of State’s office led by Democrat Cisco Aguilar, said “providing accurate information to the public is a priority for our office, and we will continue to review and improve all guides and documentation.”

“The Secretary of State’s office was involved in this case by necessity, and took no position on the legal sufficiency of the petition under Nevada law,” the statement said. “We respect the decision of the Justices, and are working with the counties to ensure the decision is carried out.”

In a released statement, co-chair of the Nevada Green Party Margery Hanson said “I live in a swing state and I will not be voting this cycle.”

The Executive Director of the Nevada Democratic Party Hilary Barrett responded to the court’s opinion stating that the “ruling is a victory for Nevada voters and ensures that the Green Party plays by the same rules as other campaigns.”

Green Party reversal

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled 5-2 that Nevada Green Party candidate Jill Stein will not appear on the state’s presidential ballot because their petition failed to meet the minor party’s access requirements.

The Nevada Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in June against the Nevada Green Party for alleged invalid signatures.

The Green Party submitted 29,500 petition signatures so its candidates could be included on the ballot, which was roughly three times as many as needed. Nevada Democratic Party then sued, claiming some were signed too far in the past or seem altered, making them invalid.

The district court in Carson City denied the lawsuit in August. The Democrats amended the original lawsuit because the language used the improper affidavit. The case was then taken to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The state Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling to allow the Green Party to stay on the Nevada general election ballot. According to the court documents, the petition contained the “circulator affidavit for initiative and referendum petitions, instead of the circulator affidavit for minor party ballot access” which is what the Nevada Democratic Party amended their lawsuit to say.

The problem: The Green Party submitted the petition that does not swear that they believe each person signing the petition is a registered voter in the county of their residence. In order to be added to the ballot, all minor parties must include this verification. The Green Party did not, so the Nevada Democratic Party added this to their lawsuit and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled to not let them on the ballot for not meeting all requirements.

“The circulator affidavit used by the Nevada Green Party omitted a legally required element: the attestation that each signatory was a registered voter in the county of his or her residence,” the document said.

However, Justices Douglas Herndon and Justice Kristina Pickering voted against the ruling, saying they believed the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office made an “egregious error” when they accidentally sent the Green Party an affidavit with the incorrect requirements.

The secretary of state’s office originally sent the Nevada Green Party the wrong sample petition, which did not include the affidavit requiring voter registration verification, according to the documents. With the wrong affidavit, the Green Party’s petition would not meet the requirements of a minor political party to be on the ballot.

The party still managed to submit the petition with the right affidavit the first time, by not using the same form the secretary of state’s office provided them. However, this petition did not include a blank space for signers to put their petition district, so the office sent it back and notified the Nevada Green Party that they needed the petition district, and emailed the party new instructions.

The employee who provided the Green Party with further guidance told them they had an “older version,” according to the dissenting judges’ opinion. The employee asked the Green Party to use this “newer” form — with the wrong affidavit — to collect signatures.

The dissenting justices claim the Nevada Green Party was “affirmatively directed” by the secretary of state’s office to use this incorrect form because the employee told them to use the wrong form.

Still, the secretary of state’s online guide for minor political parties to apply to be on the ballot states the petition needs the verification that signatures are from people who are actual registered voters. So even without the proper affidavit, the state supreme court ruled that they should’ve done their research into what was required for them to be on the ballot.

The court acknowledged the miscommunication of improper materials on the behalf of the secretary of state’s office, but classified the situation as an unfortunate event that could’ve been remedied with a more in-depth review.

“There is no evidence that the email was anything but an unfortunate mistake or that the (s)ecretary intended to mislead the Green Party,” the documents said.

“If the Green Party had reviewed the petition before using it, it would have discovered the incorrect circulator affidavit …This is an unfortunate oversight on the part of both the secretary of state’s office and the Green Party.”

Herndon and Pickering said they believed the secretary of state’s office’s mistake would be the result of a “tremendous injustice.”

The secretary of state’s office told the RGJ in an email that they took “no position” on whether the Green Party’s petition was legal.

“We respect the decision of the Justices, and are working with the counties to ensure the decision is carried out,” Cecilia Heston, spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said.

“Providing accurate information to the public is a priority for our office, and we will continue to review and improve all guides and documentation.”

The last time Green Party had any candidates on the Nevada ballot was in the 2008 presidential election, when Cynthia McKinney received about 1,400 votes compared with Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s 532,000.

Co-chair of the Nevada Green Party Margery Hanson told the RGJ due to the court events today, she “would not be voting this cycle.”

The Nevada Democratic Party did not respond to the RGJ’s request for comment.