Hablamos Español - Available 24/7
866-NAPOLIN

The Route 91 Harvest Festival Shooting: Public Facts and Sources

By Alexander D. Napolin, Esq. | Last reviewed October 30, 2026

Alexander D. Napolin is among the lawyers in the litigation that followed the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, and has appeared in media coverage of it. The facts below come from the public sources named with them, and the page links to my articles about the litigation.

What happened on October 1, 2017?

The FBI summarized it this way: “On October 1, 2017, over 22,000 people gathered for a music festival at a 15-acre, open-air concert venue in Las Vegas, Nevada. On the final night of the festival, Stephen Craig Paddock opened fire into the crowd from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. The gunfire started around 10:05 p.m. and continued for approximately eleven minutes, with Paddock firing over 1,000 rounds. Fifty-eight persons were killed and several hundred more were injured.” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Key Findings of the Behavioral Analysis Unit's Las Vegas Review Panel, p. 1.)

The FBI's review panel concluded that there was “no single or clear motivating factor behind Paddock's attack” (id., p. 1). The FBI document also states that “[e]xhaustive investigations by the LVMPD and the FBI yielded no indication that Paddock's attack was motivated by a grievance against any specific casino, hotel, or institution in Las Vegas; the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino; the Route 91 Harvest Festival; or against anyone killed or injured during the attack” (id., p. 2). Those are findings about motive, not about anyone's duty or liability.

What video was released after the shooting?

This page covers two sets of video that became public in 2018.

  • Hotel surveillance video. On March 22, 2018, MGM Resorts International, the parent company of Mandalay Bay, released surveillance video that, as the Las Vegas Sun reported, “shows a gunman's movements through the resort in the days before he opened fire.” MGM said it released the footage to provide “greater context,” and its spokeswoman said, “As the security footage demonstrates, Stephen Paddock gave no indication of what he planned to do and his interactions with staff and overall behavior were all normal.” The Sun also reported that the footage “shows Stephen Paddock during a seven-day span beginning Sept. 25 bring more than 20 pieces of luggage into the resort, a couple of times with the help of hotel staff.” (Las Vegas Sun, March 22, 2018.)
  • Police body camera video. Beginning May 2, 2018, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department released body camera video and other records in batches “under a court order in a public records lawsuit by media including The Associated Press” (Associated Press, via Claims Journal, July 30, 2018). The police had argued against release, NPR reported, saying release would “further traumatize a wounded community” and would force officers to “relive the incident,” and that reviewing the footage would be too costly and require a significant amount of funds and manpower (NPR, via NHPR, May 3, 2018). Patch reported on March 22, 2018 that lawyers for the department “have consistently argued that the investigation is ongoing, and the release of such material would compromise that investigation” (Patch, March 22, 2018). A Nevada Supreme Court order in a public records case that the Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Associated Press and other news organizations brought against the police department describes the appeal as one from “district court orders directing appellant to disclose records and awarding costs in a public records matter,” and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nev. S. Ct. No. 75518, Order Dismissing Appeal and Cross-Appeal (Feb. 13, 2020)). None of the news reports cited here gives the case number of the lawsuit in which the video was released, and the order does not mention video.

What did the 2014 United States v. Dunbar firearms case involve?

In United States v. Dunbar, a 2014 federal case, the court found that the defendant “pled guilty to Count One of a One-Count Criminal Indictment charging him with Felon in Possession of a Firearm,” and the court's Preliminary Order of Forfeiture lists six firearms as forfeited property, including two .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles (United States v. Dunbar, D. Nev. No. 2:14-cr-00394, ECF No. 23 (Sept. 9, 2015)). The scanned copy of that order on CourtListener does not mention the hotel.

The Associated Press reported in July 2018 that a court filing “compared the November 2014 arrest of Kye Aaron Dunbar in a 24th-floor room at the Mandalay Bay with the shooting last year,” and that a lawyer for plaintiffs cited a document in the Dunbar case saying a rifle in the room “was pointed toward a window overlooking the Las Vegas Strip.” The same report said that Dunbar's lawyer in that case “argued that the rifle with the tripod was on the floor, not pointing out the window.” It said that an MGM spokeswoman, who provided a transcript of Dunbar's January 2016 sentencing, characterized the case as “one felon violating parole by having a firearm,” not planning a mass murder, and said, “The judge clearly indicates that he did not believe the individual planned to use the weapon as part of a violent crime.” It also said that the sentencing judge called the positioning of the gun “unfortunate” and said he did not believe Dunbar was involved in terrorism (Associated Press, via Claims Journal, July 10, 2018).

What has MGM said about whether the attack could have been foreseen?

In a statement reported March 22, 2018, MGM's spokeswoman said: “MGM and Mandalay Bay could not reasonably foresee that a long-time guest with no known history of threats or violence and behaving in a manner that appeared outwardly normal, would carry out such an inexplicably evil, violent and deadly act” (Las Vegas Sun, March 22, 2018). The Associated Press reported in July 2018 that “Mandalay Bay bans weapons, and attorneys for the company argue that the Paddock shooting was unprecedented and ‘unforeseeable as a matter of law.'” (Associated Press, via Claims Journal, July 10, 2018.) The first clause is the Associated Press's own statement; the rest reports an argument the AP attributes to “attorneys for the company.” The spokeswoman's statement and that argument are one side's positions, not findings.

My articles about the Route 91 litigation

Sources

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT. This page is for general information purposes only and is current as of the “Last reviewed” date above. Nothing in it should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation; every situation turns on its own facts. This page is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

NOTICE

Making a false or fraudulent workers’ compensation claim is a felony subject to up to 5 years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000 or double the value of the fraud, whichever is greater, or by both imprisonment and fine.

NAPOLIN APC | Accident & Injury Lawyer, Alexander D. Napolin, Esq., 269 West Bonita Avenue, Claremont, California 91711