LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A web-based spat between a Henderson metropolis councilwoman and two of her constituents bubbled over into Henderson Justice Courtroom, the place one of many residents filed, albeit unsuccessfully, for a protecting order towards the elected official, in line with paperwork first obtained by the 8 Information Now Investigators.
In an incident report dated in Might, police element accusations stemming from a feud between the residents — a husband and spouse dwelling in Inspirada — and their councilwoman, Monica Larson, over their Neighborhood Watch. The report mentioned the husband filed a protecting order towards Larson as a result of Larson had “gone so far as to divulge where they work and the vehicle that they drive.” The Justice Courtroom confirmed the husband’s unsuccessful utility for a protecting order in April, naming Larson because the hostile occasion.
Larson — a relative newcomer to town’s political scene — was sworn in because the Ward II councilwoman in January, changing longtime Henderson politician Dan Shaw. Previous to her swearing-in, Larson informed the 8 Information Now Investigators that she ran towards Shaw as a result of he ignored her a number of emails and telephone calls urging him to deal with sure public issues of safety in her district.
“I was determined at that point because you’re a public servant and you’re a public official,” Larson mentioned of Shaw in December 2024. “You serve the people you don’t serve yourself. And I was determined to make an example out of them to let them know we the people don’t subscribe to that.” Larson, earlier than her swearing-in, finally wished Shaw properly through the public remark portion of a metropolis council assembly.
Larson ran her election on, amongst different issues, points associated to public security. Within the incident report detailing Larson’s interactions with the husband and spouse, the spouse alleges Larson “drives the neighborhood every night with a yellow light on top of her car, acting as an unofficial roving security guard.”
That incident report, describing the Neighborhood Watch squabble, mentioned that in late April, the spouse went to the Henderson Through Inspirada Police Station to “make a report of harassment involving her neighbor, Henderson City Councilwoman Monica Larson.”
The report particulars a two-year relationship between the couple and Larson, who labored as a part of the identical Neighborhood Watch group. “Members of the group had several unpleasant interactions with Monica Larson, which resulted in Monica kicking them out of the group and blocking them from the neighborhood Facebook page,” the report mentioned.
However a baby luring incident in April renewed their involvement with one another and led to an disagreeable forwards and backwards between Larson and the married couple, the report mentioned.
In the end, the report mentioned, a neighbor suggested, within the on-line discussion board, “that there was a Tesla that was parked in the area where the incident occurred and questioned whether the Tesla could have recorded the incident.” The husband then requested if the Tesla was a particular coloration, in line with the report.
Larson, the report mentioned, replied to the husband’s query, “accusing” the husband “of targeting her son, who drives” an identical Tesla, “and insinuating he was the suspect by mentioning his Tesla.”
The report mentioned Larson suggested the net group of the truth that the husband “was kicked out of the Neighborhood Watch group two years ago and calling him a ‘disgruntled man baby.’”
Larson then posted on the discussion board, accusing the husband “of slandering her and her family,” the report mentioned.
Not lengthy after, the report mentioned, Larson “contacted the Henderson Police Department to file a harassment complaint on behalf of her son.”
Police contacted Larson and, in line with the report, “advised her that if her adult son would like to report the harassment, he would speak with him; otherwise, he could not take a report on his behalf without him being present and providing the information firsthand.”
The report alleges Larson “continued to post online” concerning the married couple, revealing private details about them, at which level the couple “ceased all online interactions with [Larson] in an attempt to stop the posts that included their personal information.”
The husband filed an utility for a brief protecting order towards Larson in Henderson Justice Courtroom a number of days later, the report says. That utility was denied in Justice Courtroom, a consultant from the court docket confirmed on Thursday.
The report mentioned police took screenshots of the net posts involving Larson and the couple “and will probably be uploaded to digital proof, and declared the case closed.
Responding to the 8 Information Now Investigators’ e-mail request for remark from each Larson and town’s public data workplace, a spokesperson replied, asking for “a little more information on what exactly you are looking for the City to address.”
The 8 Information Now Investigators requested particular questions on whether or not Larson or town denied or had any touch upon the allegations, whether or not Larson’s son was ever interviewed with relation to April’s little one luring incident, and whether or not anybody was ever apprehended for that incident. The 8 Information Now Investigators additionally requested whether or not Larson drives with a yellow mild on high of her automobile, and if that’s the case, why.
A Henderson public data officer offered this response late Thursday afternoon:
“Thank you for sending the questions.The provided record is an informational report and relates to a civil matter reported to the Henderson Police Department, where no criminal activity was involved; therefore, no investigation took place. Regarding the alleged child luring incident, no one has been apprehended, and the only interviews that took place were with the reporting party and a witness. To obtain the report, please submit a public records request.As for the rest of your questions, please know the City of Henderson does not comment on a council person’s private matters.”
