I am interested to see where this stop leads. Seems like a flagrant abuse of power and violates the recent ruling regarding open carry and PC.
Surprised to see this hadn't been shared here yet. Found via the Nevada Open Carry FB page. Police show up, order him down at gun point. They disarm him (heard in the video but not seen). Other officers ask for his ID, he says he doesn't have it. They ask his name, he asks them why he needs to provide it and repeatedly asks why he's been stopped. Another office comes up with the bs answer that they have to figure out if he's old enough to possess the weapon, and if he doesn't comply he'll be arrested. He asks again and the officer moves to cuff him. Video shuts off after that.
Hope to get more info from the OP. Couldn't find any inmate information at the Washoe County Jail that matches the YouTube name, I'm presuming the YouTube poster is the person in the video.
I am interested to see where this stop leads. Seems like a flagrant abuse of power and violates the recent ruling regarding open carry and PC.
My guess is it hasn't gotten much coverage here because it's recent and long gun open carry is not an issue OCDO wants to get involved in... Either way, the SPD just lost a ton of $...
Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
Too many officers read "probable cause" as "possible cause"
You could be breaking the law, so I'm going to stop you and try to find some way that you are. If I can't, then I'll let you go. <- Typical police encounter.
Unfortunately, the law may be on the cops' side ... determining age is subjective ...
w/o a pic of the guy arrested its impossible to say if they clearly crossed a line...
Another reason NOT to support age restrictions on gun ownership or possession
Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-26-2013 at 12:51 PM.
General agreement that the officers actions were not as they should have been notwithstanding, I found something odd about the video; its categorization.
Published on Aug 24, 2013
Sparks Police man pulls his gun on a open Carry gun activist on 8/23/13
License Standard YouTube License
Yeah, I thought the category was odd myself. I've never posted to YouTube, don't know if that's an easy mistake to make or not.
I actually watched this yesterday at work and found this to be ridiculous! To come up on the guy with guns drawn! Totally unacceptable. I would take this to court just for the endangering my life.. I know it's a long gun but come on.
-Matt of Hillsboro OR-
In a just world these officers would be fired.
In reality nothing will happen to the cops and the citizens will be paying cash for these cops god complex.
The citizens are blissfully ignorant to the cycle and just keep opening their wallets.
Speaking of traffic stops, didn't they recently hold a "proof of insurance checkpoint" in Sparks or Reno a year or two ago? Seems to me those and DUI checkpoints should be unlawful for the same reasons.
I've had Washoe County Sheriffs deputies draw pistols and point rifles at me in the past for open carrying a holstered pistol. They never arrested me but I always identified myself. I didn't have any video though, and I didn't seek any redress. In the past I was more worried about college than trying to correct the police.Originally Posted by Mattimusmaximus
I hope whoever was stopped in the video gets his charges dropped (refusing to ID?) and then sues and sets a precedent to stop such stops.
It seems kind of funny to me that the cop in the video has a problem with the guy carrying a slung AR-15 on his back, yet cops these days walk around with similar rifles in their hands.
Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 08-26-2013 at 02:54 PM.
"Hiibel" Obstructing arrest for not identifying himself. Officer will testify the suspect looked under 18, too young to possess a firearm. Judge Spoo or McCarthy will rule that's good reason to seize him. Wendy or Rosie will play this video to the judge; there will be no jury. Guilty as charged. Appeal to district court, cite Terry, Brady, etc. Not applicable in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada. Appeal to Nevada supreme court not possible from a case originating from municipal court. Pay the fine, do the time, welcome to Sparks.
But I don't think anyone who looks like they could be 16 should be stopped just because there is a chance they might be younger. On that logic you can stop anyone for no reason at all.
If the cop claims he looked under age (say 8 years old) then why point his weapon at him...scaring a kid with an airsoft rifle? No this cop was on a power trip he shouldn't have un-holstered his weapon at all. He had no reason to pull his weapon no matter the age of the LAC.
NRS 202.290 Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty. Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person who willfully:
1. Aims any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being; or
2. Discharges any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby, although an injury does not result,
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1911 C&P § 344; RL § 6609; NCL § 10292]—(NRS A 1989, 820, 1240, 1243)
Vegaspassat wrote: Waking down the street. And some guy (with a badge) points a gun at him. Is he within his legal rights to defend himself with deadly force?
No. In brief, if a guy with a badge (cop) points his gun at you, you are obligated to comply with his instructions. Assume arguendo, you have done nothing wrong. He may be pointing a gun at you for any # of reasons. He very well may have RAS or PC. You of course have no way of knowing at the beginning of the stop why he is pointing his gun at you. You can't assume, as an OCer, that your OCing is why he is pointing a gun at you. For all you know, an armed robbery just occurred and you match the description, etc.
I was stopped at gunpoint back in my college days. I had done NOTHING wrong. Turns out the scenario was exactly as above. An armed robbery had just occurred. I was driving a type of vehicle that matched the description of the get away vehicle. My physical description also matched the perp. My location and direction of travel were consistent with having committed the armed robbery, also.
Iow, he had bucketloads of RAS that I was the robber.
*i* had no way of knowing that. I just know a cop was pointing his gun at me (several, actually) and issuing me orders. I followed same orders, was proned out on the pavement, etc. and handcuffs were applied.
They explained why they were seizing me and I explained where I was coming from (taco bell). I even had a receipt, plus I was in the middle of eating a taco at the time I was stopped. Since a stop was made for a crime involving threatened deadly force (the perp used a long gun), the officer was justified in frisking me , which he did, as well as the passenger compartment (justified under Michigan v. Long - in Michigan v. Long, the SCOTUS determined that if police have RS that the person is armed and dangerous, they may frisk the passenger compartment of the vehicle he was stopped in. Similar to a terry frisk. It's essentially a "Car frisk", cannot search in areas where the weapon couldn't be (container too small, etc)
After they frisked me and the car, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long, I spoke with them, told them where I was coming from etc etc and it became apparent pretty quickly that I was not the perp.
The point of the story is that you can't know at the time you are stopped at gunpoint by a cop whether he has RAS of a violent crime or not. The fact that you have done nothing wrong is ENTIRELY irrelevant. The issue is the facts and circ's known to the officer at the time he uses that force. In brief, you have to assume he's in the right for doing what he is doing. If it turns out after the fact, he was NOT , you have avenues for redress (consider the guy who just got 15k for getting a gun pointed at him because the cop did NOT have justifiable reasons to point a gun at him (imo, he should have gotten a bigger settlement, but I digress).
Being stopped at gunpoint is what is referred to as a "felony stop". They are key process for officers, and the methods used are done for officer safety and are entirely consistent with the 4th amendment. The force used by officers in a stop must be reasonable GIVEN the crime suspected. As long as that is the case, the stop will be considered a Terry (as opposed to a constructive custodial arrest) and also given that it is not unreasonably extended in time, etc.
However, as a contrary example - If a cop stops you at gunpoint for a (for example) shoplift where no gun was used or implied, it would
1) be viewed as a de facto arrest (vs. terry seizure) and all evidence gained, to include testimonial and physical would be suppressed
2) the ofc. would be civilly liable, as well as subject to deparmental discipline
I've stopped people at gunpoint many many times in a 20+ yr long career, and for everything you could imagine, from murder suspect to you name it. I'm still here living and breathing, too - which is the point. Otoh, one of my best friend was shot and killed during a terry type encounter. He was an attorney before he was a cop and I have no way of knowing if he pat frisked the guy, but whatever occurred during the stop, it ended up with him dead. I think about that nearly every day and I use proper officer safety to protect myself, while balancing the right of suspects to be free of UNreasonable seizures.
Stops at gunpoint allow officers to "get the draw" on suspects. This is valuable because it gives them the upper hand IF the suspect responds violently. It also deters the suspect FROM acting violently, because he can see he is outnumbered and the cops have the drop on him. In cases where they do respond violently (reach for the gun, etc.) it's often a suicide by cop, a guy determined not to be taken alive, etc. I've never had to shoot during a terry stop, thank god.
In brief, if a cop points a gun at you and issues orders, yes - you are legally obligated to comply. And remember, if you are OCing, you may ASSUME it is a cop wrongly drawing down on you merely because you are OCing (and if so, that cop deserves serious discipline and maybe even termination depending on training, facts, etc. ) but it very well may be for some other reason entirely.
I've had cops tell me I had to let them in my house, I tell them drop dead & I would stop their entry with whatever means was needed; cops tell me to stop recording public meetings ~ I tell them to drop dead there too
You see, cops can LIE to people to get them to do what they want...so is an order to do something based on a lie or not? That's something for a court to figure out if needed.
I have disobeyed more orders than I have complied with ~ and look, I am a freeman ... so, about 80% of orders that cops give they have no right to give, from my experience. And when a freeman says no and is correct in the assessment that they have no authority to issue such an "order" .. they either yell at you that they are giving you a break or just slither away.
Point a gun and make an unlawful request? That's assault with a deadly weapon in my book.
If I wanted to obey orders I would have stayed in the military ...
First of all, in many jurisdictions, you are obligated to submit (such as to an arrest) even if it's NOT valid. Iow, if you resist, that can be criminally charged EVEN THOUGH the arrest later turned out to be bogus. That's the case in many, if not most jurisdictions. You are free to verbally protest it and hope to convince the officer he's messing up, but you CANNOT legally resist (in most jurisdictions).
The second issue, that you completely gloss over is that YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES A COP ISSUES YOU AN ORDER (such as telling you to put your hands up or whatever) that it IS or ISN'T a lawful legal demand (or request).
The example I gave was the armed robbery example, but let me give you another.
Assume you are driving below the speed limit, etc. and have committed no traffic infractions whatsoever. If a cop turns on his blue lights etc. behind you DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO STOP?
It doesn't matter that you (think) you have committed no infraction and thus the order to stop (and the flashing blue lights etc. ARE an order to yield to the right and stop) is an "unlawful" request (actually demand)
You have no way of knowing WHY the cop is blue lighting you. It may be , like in my example, that he has RAS of some crime you have no knowledge of.
If you don't stop, you are committing a crime. Groovy
In SOME states, you do have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but the burden is entirely on you to be sure it's an ulawful arrest. I don't know what state you live in. Check your state case law. In states where it IS legal to resist an unlawful arrest, it's usually from the common law fwiw.
As for the "unlawful" order... in 20+ yrs of police work, it's been very very very rare that somebody refuses a lawful order (I don't issue unlawful orders) that I have given. Usually, if they initially refuse, I give them the reason WHY I am issuing the order and the consequences of their repeated refusal. And with a little verbal judo, they ALMOST always comply.
One example was we were investigating a possible DV incident (neighbor called when he heard woman crying "help me" from inside the house, etc.) and the male 1/2 was standing in the kitchen immediately next to one of those knife blocks (wooden block that holds a bunch of knives). Basic officer safety and common sense tell me that I am going to ask the guy to step from the kitchen and talk to me here in the living room, where he is not within lunge distance of multiple deadly weapons. We *are* justified in issuing orders like that in cases like that, and I have continually seen courts uphold obstructing etc. arrests when people refuse to comply with same. Anyway, the guy went into a long rant about how it was HIS house and I couldn't tell him where to stand in HIS house bla bla bla. Actually, I can. And I'm not issuing the order to be capricious or a power hungry jerk. I am issuing the order because I have the right to use ReASONABLE means to "make the scene safe" and courts have upheld this time and time again. I explained to him that I was just wanting to move so that he was not within lunge distance of multiple weapons (we all know the reaction time etc. rules for somebody armed with a knife and your gun is in a holster) and that if he refused he was subjecting himself to arrest/charges whereas if he complied we could likely get on with our threshold inquiry and be out of his hair in a few minutes and then he could stand next to his knives to his heart's content.
I've had numerous instances that occur in homes where I have the legal right to enter w/o a warrant (under various doctrines, to include community caretaking doctrine, exigency, etc. etc) and the VAST majority of the time I gain voluntary compliance. On maybe 1/100 such incidents I get a refusal and a door being shut on me, and I end up having to make an arrest. And yes, the arrests have always held up. The example I gave recently was where a guy was passed out/dead etc. on the couch, surrounded by beer can and hard liquor , appeared to be underage, etc. and I requested the party at the door, the homeowner, wake him up so I could see if he was ok. Homeowner refused. I told him either he do it, or I do it, but one way or the other, I needed to talk to that kid and I was perfectl y willing to stand outside his house while HE woke the guy up, but if he refused, I would have to make entry t do so and he would be subject to arrest. He refused and tried to shut the door on me. I forced entry and made contact with the kid on the couch. Turns out he had a BAC level that was near the LD50 (iow potentially fatal), I found out later and my getting him prompt medical attention was the right thing to do. His parents thanked me effusively. the homeowner got arrested for obstructing and a liquor violation, and yes THAT held up in court, too. He may have thought it to be an unlawful order (To allow me entry). He was wrong. - community caretaking doctrine, as well as a side order of in loco parentis!
I know my case law and I know my oath (to protect and serve as in the above example... it was about protecting somebody's health and safety and I take that oath very seriously) and I am not about issuing UNlawful orders.
There will always be that small percentage of people who will refuse to comply, and who will even do so after I use my considerable verbal judo skillz (I almost always get compliance. Communication skillz are very important and you learn a lot in 20 yrs about how to gain voluntary compliance and I also learned a lot of psychology in grad school which helps too) and that's their choice/ if they want to obstruct themselves into an arrest, more power to 'em
I've never been sued, I've never had an arrest of that type that didn't hold up, and I will continue to protect people's persons and safety and I will issue orders when necessary to further that goal, orders that are entirely lawful
And there will always be that tiny minority (usually either very drunk or very high ime) who will refuse to comply and they have nobody to blame but themselves for earning a criminal citation or a trip to jail.
If somebody told you to stop recording a public meeting, that was of course an illegal order (it's in the very definition - PUBLIC meeting).
I'm talkin' lawful orders. And again, whether an order is lawful or not is tangential to whether you PERCEIVE it as lawful. In some cases, it may be obvious (a la the recording scenario) but in most cases it is not
If you are bebopping down the sidewalk, doing nothing wrong, and a cop stops you at gunpoint and orders you to raise your hands above your head, do you comply? You may ASSUME it's some moron cop unlawfully overereacting to your OCing, but you don't KNOW that. You may be a criminal suspect in a robbery or whatnot. Don't assume.
Regardless of your bogus statistics, I know that in my case, my orders ARE lawful, I know that the overwhelming majority of people comply with same, I know that when they don't comply that every time I have taken enforcement action pursuant to that refusal - theresult was a criminal conviction, and I know that if I issue an order there is a damn good reason for me to do so. I don't lie . I don't issue unlawful orders. I don't throw my authoritah around - I only issue orders when damn well justified, and I expect and get compliance almost every time
I would WAY rather get compliance than make an arrest. Making an arrest takes me out of my district and leaves the districts even MORE undestaffed than we are already. It's not done to prove a point. It's done in the course of justice. Good cops would WAY rather use their mouth than their pen, and would way rather use their pen than their handcuffs. Sometimes, I get lucky and can go a week without an arrest. Groovy.
I've actually got my dept. laptop out right now and am looking through the case reports I have filed and arrests for "obstruction" are very very rare. Thank god the overwhelming majority of the public are good people, that they listen to reason, that they comply with police, and that they view us as honest and professional. It makes the job rewarding.
Feel free to resist lawful orders, and feel free to spend the night in jail if you do.
Last edited by PALO; 08-26-2013 at 08:03 PM.
I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.
Simple question: in YOUR jurisdiction, can you lawfully resist an unlawful arrest? (again, some you can, some you cant)
And of course you are exactly right. The courts are the ultimate "decider" in whether the order I give is lawful.
It goes like this. I issue order. It's lawful (I've never had a case overturned etc. because of an unlawful order and every time I have arrested somebody for refusing to comply with same, the arrest has held up). Guy refuses. I engage in verbal judo. The OVERWHELMING majority of the time, I gain voluntary compliance and my order is accepted and adhered to (some as simple as "take your hands out of your pockets please". stuff like that). In the very rare case, the order is willfully disobeyed and even after I warn that they will get arrested if they refuse (unless there is substantial exigency, when it comes to making valid arrests based on obstruction of a lawful order, it is always best to warn the subject they will be arrested if they refuse. Prosecutors have told me that the case is much stronger when such a warning is given), then I make an arrest or issue a criminal citation.
Then, the courts become the decider. If I arrest based on refusal to comply with an UNlawful order, I open myself to dept. discipline, civil liability, and in rare cases, criminal liability.
I don't need that hassle. That's why I only issue lawful orders. In the last month, I've had cases involving refusing to comply with unlawful orders, and in both cases they ultimately ended up with assault on a police officer (in one case it was me, and in the other it was my partner) and arrest. So, it's been an unusual month, in that Assaults on an officer are pretty rare with me. Usually, I can gain compliance, I am 'big' enough that i have the deterrent of some good command presence, and often the assaulter is drunk, so it's pretty easy to parry their lame attempt at assault.
The first case involved a drunk female refusing to exit her car. I have zero doubt the case will hold up. She was given ample warnings, PLUS we have the benefit of having the incident on video. Slam dunk
The second involved a terry stop that turned into a warrant arrest/assault on a police officer arrest. I have zero doubt that case will hold up.
But it's been an outlier month. I can go many months in between obstruction and/or assault on a PO incident. Imo and ime, the WA courts (which are much more protective of civil rights to include privacy etc. than the federal standard) do a darn good job of balancing the right of persons to be "left alone" by police without due cause , with the authoritah of cops to detain people pursuant to investigations. Also, here in the Pac NW,frankly,... the guys are pussys. Passive aggressive pussys. When I was in Hawaii, it was a MUCH tougher culture. Guys liked to fight. It was good natured, though. They have to make a good show of resisting arrest, to save face with their family. And assuming they weren't super assaultive, we wouldn't even charge resisting against them. Just accepted that sometimes you gotta get into a scrap to make an arrest. Pac NW guys are total candyass pussies and will comply with arrest and THEN once they are in handcuffs start in on the tuff gai routine "if I didn't have these handcuffs on I'd kick your..." bla bla bla