• 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.

Detained today

cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

No, an attoney will get a decent pay day. The OP is about to get $1.00 unless they settle out of court and agree to pay $$$$



Always carry a tape recorder (if legal to record in NV)
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
No, an attoney will get a decent pay day. The OP is about to get $1.00 unless they settle out of court and agree to pay $$$$



Always carry a tape recorder (if legal to record in NV)
Click to expand...
It is a questionable item. Statute indicates single party notification. Case law indicates ALL party notification.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
cato wrote:
No, an attoney will get a decent pay day. The OP is about to get $1.00 unless they settle out of court and agree to pay $$$$



Always carry a tape recorder (if legal to record in NV)
Click to expand...
It is a questionable item. Statute indicates single party notification. Case law indicates ALL party notification.
Click to expand...
huh? Cite to your case law. Besides, you can always video tape and record the police while they perform public duties.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
wrightme wrote:
cato wrote:
No, an attoney will get a decent pay day. The OP is about to get $1.00 unless they settle out of court and agree to pay $$$$



Always carry a tape recorder (if legal to record in NV)
Click to expand...
It is a questionable item. Statute indicates single party notification. Case law indicates ALL party notification.
Click to expand...
huh? Cite to your case law. Besides, you can always video tape and record the police while they perform public duties.
Click to expand...
NV threads exist speaking to this already. I will search for it. I saw it here.

As a quick study, here it calls the statute "one party" notification.

Here is the relevant part of the NRS: "NRS 200"

Specifically, NRS 200.650 calls it "one party."

Here is a site with one case law reference indicating "all party consent required"
 
T

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

Reading the statute I have some thoughts. Maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but maybe not.

NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

The police officer, engaging you in public, has no expectation of privacy. His conversation is subject to being heard by any member of the public. I don't think there would be any exception in his vehicle either, since I believe dashboard cameras also record in-cruiser audio.

I think this applies mostly to monitoring private conversations, such as phone calls, bugs in offices, bugs in homes, bugs in cars, etc. If you're in public, you should have no expectation of privacy, and so anyone recording in public would not be intruding upon your privacy. How many of us have walked in front of someone with a camcorder? They're not breaking the law if their recording overhears part of your conversation.

Plus, since everything the police do is a matter of public record (reports, camera footage, audio recordings, etc., with redaction of any victim information), anyone talking to the police should know they're not making "private" statements -- "can and will be used against you" means you should expect to see a video of yourself later in a courtroom if it comes to that.....all the more reason to STFU and not say anything to police.
 
C

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

TOTALLY AGREE! Fourth Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights violations!!! Outrageous!
 
N

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

If you pay attention to this law you will see this: "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation"

The person recording the conversation can be the one person authorizing as long asthe person recordingis engaged in the conversation. It matters not where you are or who your talking to as long as it is in the state of Nevada.
 
Felid`Maximus

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

Were you at any time told by the management that you were not allowed to carry within the store? If you were, I would not return because they could cite you for trespassing.
 
L

Lord Vader

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
37
Location
Sparks, Nevada, USA
imported post

I was mainly just joking. I probably wont be going to Target any more. I have a number of problems with Target, and my family normally doesn't go there, but my sister had a gift card.

As for the trespassing thing, no one except the police ever talked to me. Management only talked to my dad, and he said they were basically apologizing the whole time and offering to buy us all treats, but we didn't accept.

The whole thing was just really weird. I hadn't heard of anything like this happening to anyone here in northern Nevada, so I was pretty surprised, especially since it was my first week OCing. I figured at some point the police might detain me, but not handcuff me. I felt like one of those guys in the movies that are in some abandoned warehouse doing something illegal, and suddenly the police come busting in. I started OCing again the next week, and so far every time I go anywhere, I keep expecting the police to come and surprise attack me :uhoh:.

Oh well, I guess if we want to change things, we have to risk getting detained, handcuffed, and 'educated' (I got the typical 'class' on why not to OC and why I should get a CCW) by police over OC; and get weird looks, and questions from our fellow citizens.
 
C

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

IMHO, you had some major 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment violations there, and possibly a 2nd amendment violation. I say start talking to civil rights lawyers in town and sue the departments pants off.

IMHO, you will get more than 1.00. If that were the case, cities would never settle, but they do because they'd rather face a 10k payment now vs the prospects of a 70k legal bill plus the potential of a judgment and another 70k legal bill from the other side. Risk 140k plus or just pay the 10k?
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Police do not have the right to DETAIN and HANDCUFF you without reason in the State of Nevada without probable cause to believe you committed a crime. Most police officers know this and act professional in all cases. If there is a rogue police officer that did this, most departments would love to know about it.

I am a huge supporter of LVMP, and do not believe this to be an normal experience.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Laughs!

I'm just the owner of a major advertising business, who moved to Nevada. My background is law enforcement (almost had the WTC fall on me). But my interest is spending money to protect individual rights, and getting politicians involved.
 
T

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

OK :)

The reason I ask is that there are a couple of initiatives and if you are interested in spending money, I'm about to start a campaign here locally against Clark County and several local cities to force compliance with state law.

I won't hijack this thread, OP definitely deserves some legal defense assistance.

Tim
 
N

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

Pace, Remember, there is a difference between reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) and probable cause. An officer can stop you and handcuff you if he has RAS. He can then pat down the OUTSIDE of your clothes and ask you questions in an attempt to get probable cause for arrest or a more detailed search. I am fairly sure with RAS they have 1 hour to get probable cause and if none is found they have to release but I could be wrong about that. RAS could be as simple as matching a description of someone who commited a crime. But make no mistake,they have to be able toarticulatethe reasonto you. They should never have an issue with letting you know why they stopped you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top