Trouble mounts for Nev. official Brooks
Troubled Nevada Assemblyman Steven Brooks was arrested early Sunday in Las Vegas on suspicion of physically attacking a family member, then grabbing for an officer's weapon.
The arrest occurred only days after the North Las Vegas Democrat embarked on a three-week leave following a string of bizarre events that began with his Jan. 19 arrest for allegedly threatening Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick.
Brooks, 40, was “agitated” and refused to obey officers' orders when they arrived to find him outside a home after responding to a report of a domestic dispute, according to police. Brooks is accused of fighting and grabbing for an officer's weapon as they tried to arrest him shortly after midnight.
Police spokesman Bill Cassell said the domestic dispute occurred inside the home, but he did not know the identity of the homeowner. No other details about the dispute were immediately available.
Las Vegas police follow a policy of not identifying the relationships of domestic dispute victims to suspects, Cassell said.
Brooks was booked into the Clark County Detention Center on misdemeanor charges of domestic battery and obstructing a public officer. His bail was set at $4,000, and he awaits an initial court appearance on Monday morning.
Brooks' attorney, Mitchell Posin, said he probably would talk to Brooks later Sunday. “It would be premature for me to say anything until I hear what his side of the story is,” Posin said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.