Conservative dirty trickster and unrepentant robo-dialer Tony Dane is one of the bad boys of Nevada politics.

Democrats spit when Dane’s name is mentioned, in no small part because he fed homophobia in a campaign involving legislative stalwart David Parks. Mainstream Republicans cringe at the thought of ever finding themselves on Dane’s Republicans-in-Name-Only (RINO) hit list. And, as more recent events have illustrated, even avowed Silver State conservatives have found something to fear from the political porcupine’s ability to target recorded criticism and innuendo to registered voters.

Fomenting fear and firing up the base has always paid well in Nevada.

It’s safe to say not a lot of people outside Dane’s own home wrung their hands on May 26, 2016 when he was slapped with an 11-count indictment alleging extortion, unlawful wiretapping, perjury and other felonies. From December 2014 through January 2015, it’s alleged Dane tried to pressure state legislators into voting staunch conservative John Ellison in as Assembly speaker prior to the start of the Legislature as a bulwark against Gov. Brian Sandoval’s planned $1.1 billion tax increase to fund and reform Nevada’s struggling K-12 education system.

Dane attempted to play the role of enforcer after learning Republican Assemblyman Chris Edwards, who had successfully campaigned as a conservative, was listening to mainstream influences in his party who wanted John Hambrick in the speaker’s role. Dane and his allies considered Hambrick a RINO and characterized Edwards’ waffling as a betrayal.

Dane did what he’s always done: He went on the attack and made no secret that Edwards was a special project. Edwards responded to the threats by calling law enforcement. After news of the criminal investigation broke, Dane contended that his surreptitious recordings and tough talk were constitutionally protected issue advocacy.

But Metro police and the Clark County district attorney’s office believe it added up to illegal wiretapping and extortion. According to the indictment, Dane allegedly threatened that if Edwards voted for Ellison that Dane “would have an affidavit filed with law enforcement and/or a state regulatory body accusing Christopher Edwards of the crime of attempting to solicit a bribe, and/or that Dane would release private, unlawfully intercepted telephone conversations” of Edwards to the public.

Were they really unlawful?

A judge in the criminal case is giving Dane’s defense attorney Don Chairez a chance to explore whether a recent Nevada Supreme Court opinion effectively defangs the indictment.

In a hearing on Oct. 17 before District Judge Michael Villani that received little notice in the press, Chairez argued the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ditech Financial civil case could substantially impact his client’s criminal trial. Although Dane focused most of his business on candidates and voters in Nevada—a state that requires two-party consent for a tape recorded conversation —he kept most of his computer dialing and recording equipment in Utah, a one-party consent state. The attorney argued that, in the wake of the Sept. 14 Ditech opinion, Dane can’t be guilty of illegal wiretapping.

Ditech’s attorneys successfully argued that Nevada’s two-party law doesn’t apply because the phone conversations recorded during attempts to collect debts were recorded in the one-party states of Minnesota and Arizona.

“Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative, concluding that NRS 200.620 does not apply to recordings of telephone conversations with a person in Nevada without that person’s consent and uses recording equipment outside of Nevada.” So Justice Mark Gibbons wrote with the court’s full concurrence.

That fresh opinion appears to challenge an important part of the state’s indictment against Dane. It doesn’t however, give the defendant a free pass if he used anything recorded to further an attempted extortion.

In the recent hearing, Chairez also argued that several of the criminal counts were little more than vigorous “issue advocacy” and wouldn’t pass muster on First Amendment grounds. He may be right, but will probably have to win that argument at trial, which has been reset for Jan. 29.

Dane’s enemies in both major parties will have to wait a little longer to find out whether he finally pays a price for playing the political dirty trickster.

John L. Smith is a longtime Las Vegas journalist and author. Contact him at [email protected]. On Twitter: @jlnevadasmith.