• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

illegal Tahoe roadblock

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
NRS 483.350 License to be carried and surrendered upon demand; limitation on conviction. Every licensee shall have his or her driver’s license in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall manually surrender the license for examination, upon demand, to a justice of the peace, a peace officer, or a deputy of the Department. However, no person charged with violating this section shall be convicted if he or she produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver’s license theretofore issued to the person and valid at the time of the demand.

[Part 20:190:1941; A 1953, 191; 1955, 65]—(NRS A 1969, 544)
 

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
So they don't need RAS or PCto demand it, but if you refuse they can cite you, however it is a guaranteed throw out at court. I wonder if you could require the cop to appear before showing it?

Of course, they might impound your vehicle for driving it without a license...

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
NRS 483.350 License to be carried and surrendered upon demand; limitation on conviction. Every licensee shall have his or her driver’s license in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle and shall manually surrender the license for examination, upon demand, to a justice of the peace, a peace officer, or a deputy of the Department. However, no person charged with violating this section shall be convicted if he or she produces in court or the office of the arresting officer a driver’s license theretofore issued to the person and valid at the time of the demand.

[Part 20:190:1941; A 1953, 191; 1955, 65]—(NRS A 1969, 544)

However, this law does not give an officer the authority to arbitrarily pull you over and ask to see your license. It must be with regard to a violation observed by the officer. It was not even the same officer that told you to pull to the side of the road. It was very apparent that he was not asking you for your DL with regard to operating the vehicle, but strictly for ID. He said "do you have any ID?" Otherwise he would have asked for registration and insurance as well. Also, he did not "run" your license he simply looked at it and gave it back to you which is another indicator that he was not asking for your operating permit but just a form of identification. I do not remember them running your plate either, did they?

It seems to me the above cite does not apply in this case. All in all though ya done good Bubba.

TBG
 

jdholmes

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
488
Location
Henderson, Nevada
This is the one I was recalling...

NRS 486.361 Driver’s license to be surrendered on demand. Every person driving a motorcycle shall manually deliver his or her license to drive a motorcycle to any police officer or court upon request therefor by such officer or court.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 1471)
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
This is the one I was recalling...

NRS 486.361 Driver’s license to be surrendered on demand. Every person driving a motorcycle shall manually deliver his or her license to drive a motorcycle to any police officer or court upon request therefor by such officer or court.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 1471)

Again, at no time did the officer ask for a Drivers License, he asked for ID. Not the same thing. Again asking for a drivers license assumes a stop for cause.

TBG
 

jdholmes

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
488
Location
Henderson, Nevada
But if he refused to ID himself then the officer could demand his DL which is an ID, couldn't he? That was what I was getting at.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
davidmcbeth, but I won't answer any questions in court. I will not be compelled to testify against myself at the scene of the fishing expedition or later in the prosecution.
.

BINGO ! Hahaha ... cops love it when you say that (and if you ask them ?, they'll say "ask me in court"). I've seen a few of them jump up and down after I tell them that ... most are cool with the answer though; but they'll still continue with questions until they get tired of hearing "ask me in court"

I rarely take the stand unless I have an affirmative defense and I lost a motion to acquit or summary judgment.
 
Last edited:

Lostlittlerobot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
260
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
However, this law does not give an officer the authority to arbitrarily pull you over and ask to see your license. It must be with regard to a violation observed by the officer. It was not even the same officer that told you to pull to the side of the road. It was very apparent that he was not asking you for your DL with regard to operating the vehicle, but strictly for ID. He said "do you have any ID?" Otherwise he would have asked for registration and insurance as well. Also, he did not "run" your license he simply looked at it and gave it back to you which is another indicator that he was not asking for your operating permit but just a form of identification. I do not remember them running your plate either, did they?

It seems to me the above cite does not apply in this case. All in all though ya done good Bubba.

TBG

A+. My recall of the video as well, your last 2 posts were dead on great points.
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
It appears that requesting ID may be Pre-empted from checkpoints:
NRS 484B.570 Administrative roadblock: Establishment; minimum requirements.

1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, administrative roadblocks upon the highways of this State for any lawful purpose other than identifying the occupants of a vehicle or because of the existence of an emergency.



The right to travel, as well as Liberty are both included as "fundemental rights by the Supreme Court. Any infringement allowed is to be "narrowly constued." thus the way this statute is written. At the end of the day you have one NRS saying you must give your drivers license to any officer, and another saying the checkpoint can not be used for the purposes of ID'ing people.
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Letter to Director Perry of DPS:


Director Chris Perry,
DPS,

Dear Director Perry,

I was perusing a video on youtube, regarding a Administrative roadblock conducted By the NHP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG7niM9PzeE
I have several concerns about the legality of this Checkpoint Conducted in the lake Tahoe area.
• As pointed out by the person in the video, there are no "flares, lantern's, or burning beam's, placed near the Signs to attract attention, as required by law. "...and a burning beam light, flare or lantern must be placed near the signs to attract the attention of the traffic to the signs..." (NRS 484B.570)
• Pursuant to law "warning signs are required stating that a police stop lies ahead, Warning Signs are Yellow in color, the Department has erred in the selection of a regulatory black on white configuration. The statute is clear that the sign is meant to warn. Source: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ (NRS 484B.570)
While I do not have a measurement capability, I am assuming that the officers measured 1320 feet from the "warning Signs" to the STOP sign. (at least it appears so) That is the correct distance for the sign, however since the STOP sign Marks the entrance to the roadblock, None of the "observing" troopers are legally within the roadblock, as they are on the wrong side of the STOP sign :
(b) At the entrance to the administrative roadblock: (emphasis added)
(1) A sign must be placed near the centerline of the highway displaying the word “Stop” in letters of sufficient size and luminosity to be readable at a distance of not less than 50 yards in the direction affected by the administrative roadblock, either in daytime or darkness. (NRS 484B.570)
• The roadblock is NRS deficient also in the aspect of Red flashing or burning light required at the entrance to the checkpoint,
(b) At the entrance to the administrative roadblock: (emphasis added)
(2) At least one red flashing or intermittent light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards. (NRS 484B.570)
It appears the cruiser on the side of the highway nearest the roadblock had every other color, besides red flashing on the car. If there was a red light flashing on the light bar of the cruiser it was NRS insufficient as it was not clearly visible. If the white SUV approximately 500 feet prior to the stop was supposed to be the "red flashing light," Then there is no STOP sign, at the entrance as required by law, and your "warning signs would certainly not been 1320 feet from the white SUV.
• The Trooper Utilized a administrative roadblock for the purposes of identifying a individual. This is strictly forbidden by the NRS :
1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, administrative roadblocks upon the highways of this State for any lawful purpose other than identifying the occupants of a vehicle or because of the existence of an emergency. (NRS 484B.570)
I hereby submit a "professional Standards" claim against the officer who Coerced the Citizen to Show his ID at an administrative roadblock, (NRS 207.190) Please advise me of the tracking number.
Director Perry, The Saddest part of this whole mess other than the ID is all of the bungled pieces in this catastrophe oppose the intent stated in the law.
2. To warn and protect the traveling public, administrative roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements: (484B.570)
Or it is possibly the fact that the dunk drivers can, and unfortunately should win in court!
In liberty,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sorry it formatted funky.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Letter to Director Perry of DPS:


Director Chris Perry,
DPS,

Dear Director Perry,

I was perusing a video on youtube, regarding a Administrative roadblock conducted By the NHP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG7niM9PzeE
I have several concerns about the legality of this Checkpoint Conducted in the lake Tahoe area.
• As pointed out by the person in the video, there are no "flares, lantern's, or burning beam's, placed near the Signs to attract attention, as required by law. "...and a burning beam light, flare or lantern must be placed near the signs to attract the attention of the traffic to the signs..." (NRS 484B.570)
• Pursuant to law "warning signs are required stating that a police stop lies ahead, Warning Signs are Yellow in color, the Department has erred in the selection of a regulatory black on white configuration. The statute is clear that the sign is meant to warn. Source: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ (NRS 484B.570)
While I do not have a measurement capability, I am assuming that the officers measured 1320 feet from the "warning Signs" to the STOP sign. (at least it appears so) That is the correct distance for the sign, however since the STOP sign Marks the entrance to the roadblock, None of the "observing" troopers are legally within the roadblock, as they are on the wrong side of the STOP sign :
(b) At the entrance to the administrative roadblock: (emphasis added)
(1) A sign must be placed near the centerline of the highway displaying the word “Stop” in letters of sufficient size and luminosity to be readable at a distance of not less than 50 yards in the direction affected by the administrative roadblock, either in daytime or darkness. (NRS 484B.570)
• The roadblock is NRS deficient also in the aspect of Red flashing or burning light required at the entrance to the checkpoint,
(b) At the entrance to the administrative roadblock: (emphasis added)
(2) At least one red flashing or intermittent light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards. (NRS 484B.570)
It appears the cruiser on the side of the highway nearest the roadblock had every other color, besides red flashing on the car. If there was a red light flashing on the light bar of the cruiser it was NRS insufficient as it was not clearly visible. If the white SUV approximately 500 feet prior to the stop was supposed to be the "red flashing light," Then there is no STOP sign, at the entrance as required by law, and your "warning signs would certainly not been 1320 feet from the white SUV.
• The Trooper Utilized a administrative roadblock for the purposes of identifying a individual. This is strictly forbidden by the NRS :
1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, administrative roadblocks upon the highways of this State for any lawful purpose other than identifying the occupants of a vehicle or because of the existence of an emergency. (NRS 484B.570)
I hereby submit a "professional Standards" claim against the officer who Coerced the Citizen to Show his ID at an administrative roadblock, (NRS 207.190) Please advise me of the tracking number.
Director Perry, The Saddest part of this whole mess other than the ID is all of the bungled pieces in this catastrophe oppose the intent stated in the law.
2. To warn and protect the traveling public, administrative roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements: (484B.570)
Or it is possibly the fact that the dunk drivers can, and unfortunately should win in court!
In liberty,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sorry it formatted funky.


Good job Tread. Keep on them.

TBG
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Correct me if I am wrong - I would love to be in this instance, but don't you have to show a motorcycle license whenever requested by a police officer? Which is a form of ID....so really you have no choice in that one, eh?

A motorcycle used to be an endorsement on a "standard" driver's license. Now, it is a separate class, and it is possible to have a motorcycle class license that does NOT have you classed for standard passenger vehicles. So with that being the case now, can a cop require license checks on passenger cars to make sure you aren't just driving it with only a motorcycle class license? The answer to your question should be the same as the answer to mine, I would hope.
 
Last edited:

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
A motorcycle used to be an endorsement on a "standard" driver's license. Now, it is a separate class, and it is possible to have a motorcycle class license that does NOT have you classed for standard passenger vehicles. So with that being the case now, can a cop require license checks on passenger cars to make sure you aren't just driving it with only a motorcycle class license? The answer to your question should be the same as the answer to mine, I would hope.

Seems to me that the RAS requirement would still stand. Do they have RAS to believe that you do NOT have the required licensing?
 

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Letter to Director Perry of DPS:


Director Chris Perry,
DPS,

Dear Director Perry,

(snip)

Hey Tread, do you have a covers-it-all resource for this in Nevada? I would like to have something like the Trifold specific to these checkpoints. How cool would it be to hand them out to people waiting in line at a checkpoint?

"This is an illegal checkpoint. After you have finished your unlawful detention here today, feel free to peruse this pamphlet at your leisure, to find out how you have been violated. It's a real eye-opener"

I am not well versed in these checkpoints, and would love to have a go-to document for such things. You seem to be an excellent candidate to put something together. Yaknow, in your spare time. ;)
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Seems to me that the RAS requirement would still stand. Do they have RAS to believe that you do NOT have the required licensing?

Yes, sorry; that was the point I was trying to make. I can get awfully subtle...
 
Top