Police encounter

imported post

Sounds very odd. You're supposed to be able to pick up event reports at any metro substation.

Plus, the standard fee (if it's not a flat rate like $5 or $10) is $1 per page. Is the event report 38 pages? Just seems like such an odd number.

imported post

Please clear up nv law for me.if I am just out walking or in a store do I have to produce Id?

imported post

Vegassteve wrote:

Please clear up nv law for me.if I am just out walking or in a store do I have to produce Id?

Click to expand...

In fact, one of the US Supreme Court's decisions on this subject comes from Nevada. Here are some quotes. Pay particular attention to whether it is talking about an ID document, or identifying oneself, as in perhaps verbally. Best to read the entire decision from beginning to end. You will get a more complete picture, and the answer to your question. The decision is called Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Ct.

...(“f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information”); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (“A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time”)...

...The California law in Kolender required a suspect to give an officer “‘credible and reliable’” identification when asked to identify himself. Id., at 360. The Court held that the statute was void because it provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with it, resulting in “‘virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.’”...

...A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures...(emphasis added)

[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html[/url]





The direct answer is that you cannot be compelled to produce ID. However, if the state, in this case Nevada,has a stop-and-identify statute AND the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that you are connected to a crime, then you would have to comply.

That's the legal angle more or less. But here is how it works on the ground. You see, you will never be able to know with complete certainty at the time of the encounter whether the officer has RAS or not. Just because you know you were not doing anything does not mean the officer did not observe some circumstance or group of circumstances that a court has already ruled provide RAS of a crime. Also, for example, you would not necessarily know whether some anti-gunner called 911 and lied that you were handling your gun, acting threatening, or whatever.

So, if youare thinking about refusing to provide ID and/oridentify yourself verbally, you would want to be very careful about how you approach it, if Nevada still has a stop-and-identify statute.

Think through on all the angles. For example, "If I refuse to provide ID after an LEO says 'Lemme see some ID', can the LEO later claim he didn't demand to see ID,lying to the judge that he only asked me to identify myself."

imported post

Citizen wrote:

You see, you will never be able to know with complete certainty at the time of the encounter whether the officer has RAS or not. [...]

So, if youare thinking about refusing to provide ID and/oridentify yourself verbally, you would want to be very careful about how you approach it, if Nevada still has a stop-and-identify statute.

Click to expand...

Right. If you are stopped in NV, under Hiibel you pretty much HAVE TO give your name. It's terrible but that's what the Supreme Court ruled. That being the case, there's not much difference between giving your name and ID nowadays, since all records are computerized anyway.

You don't HAVE TO show an actual ID document such as your driver's license, but since your name accomplishes the same thing ... you almost might as well, to appease the officer. It doesn't make much of a difference in any practical way.

The SCOTUS has effectively upheld Nazi style identification laws. Personally I think that the right to exist and travel the Earth anonymously is a God-given right which is, or ought to be, secured for all human beings by the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

But the Bill of Rights is ignored more and more with each day that passes.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Ken-

I agree it's very easy to debate this from the comfort/safety of our homes, and you never really know how you'll handle the situation until you find yourself in it.  Having been unlawfully detained myself (see http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum37/23008.html in the NH forum), I can attest to the fact that being uncooperative made my stop 20 minutes instead of the 5 minutes described by Dave.

If refusing to cooperate results in a 20 minute detention, but cooperating results in a 5 minute detention, why not cooperate?  Because the detention never should have happened in the first place.  If we simply give in and cooperate in order to save ourselves a little bit of time, we've conditioned the police that it's OK to detain people illegally, and we've conditioned ourselves to tolerate it.

Since it is a matter of personal preference, I will continue to be uncooperative at each and every police encounter in the future, no matter the circumstances.  If refusing to answer questions gets me arrested, either I've done something to be arrested for (in which case talking will not get me out of it), or I've been illegally arrested.  In the case of the latter, I'll just have to hope the laws protecting me from civil rights violations and unlawful detention/arrest have teeth.

Tim

Click to expand...

If Rosa Parks would have just done what she was told and gotten in the back of the bus, she wouldn't have been inconvenienced by the arrest for sitting in a seat reserved for the exclusive use of white folk.

That's how I see this movement, plain and simple. I have a lot of respect for Timf343 and others who are brave enough to not sit in the back of the bus, as it were, it's the only thing that can possibly advance our civil rights cause.

imported post

wayneco wrote:

If Rosa Parks would have just done what she was told and gotten in the back of the bus, she wouldn't have been inconvenienced by the arrest for sitting in a seat reserved for the exclusive use of white folk.

That's how I see this movement, plain and simple. I have a lot of respect for Timf343 and others who are brave enough to not sit in the back of the bus, as it were, it's the only thing that can possibly advance our civil rights cause.

Click to expand...

Amen to that. Have you seen the videos posted by the owner of the Checkpoint USA website? Some incredibly brave people there, who know their rights and are willing to risk their physical safety to assert them.

imported post

spiritof76 wrote:

SNIP You don't HAVE TO show an actual ID document such as your driver's license, but since your name accomplishes the same thing ... you almost might as well, to appease the officer. It doesn't make much of a difference in any practical way.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Heh, heh, heh. However, since the cop does not have legal authority to demand ID, if he does, and you comply while refusing consent, then you can add another bullet point to your formal complaint.

Heck, as long as he demands it, you don't even have to refuse consent. Just comply, and you've got him. The refused consent just makes it clear that you were complying with a demand non-consensually, as opposed to freely complying with a request. The point being to cement that it isademand, not a request.

imported post

Ok, just got back from purchasing one "DISPATCH LOG" the cost was $38 .00 it is one full page andcame with another page containing theCODES so you can make some sense out of it.also available are audio recordings of the radio communications. those are $95.00 and are reproduced on CD. the ladys were helpfull and explained the breakdown for me. I will fax or email anyone this, just PM me.and Ialso vow that next time it will certainly be more than one page, I am getting my moneys worth haha.. Dave

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Heh, heh, heh. However, since the cop does not have legal authority to demand ID, if he does, and you comply while refusing consent, then you can add another bullet point to your formal complaint.

Click to expand...

You can't hand over what you don't have. I make sure my ID is not on my person. Usually that means my wife has it in her purse, as I usually drive the two of us wherever we're going. If I'm asked for ID, this is what I am prepared to hand over.

imported post

DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:

Ok, just got back from purchasing one "DISPATCH LOG" the cost was $38 .00 it is one full page andcame with another page containing theCODES so you can make some sense out of it.also available are audio recordings of the radio communications. those are $95.00 and are reproduced on CD. the ladys were helpfull and explained the breakdown for me. I will fax or email anyone this, just PM me.and Ialso vow that next time it will certainly be more than one page, I am getting my moneys worth haha.. Dave

Click to expand...

Wow, $38 to photocopy 1 page and $95 to burn a CD?

Seems like LVMPD doesn't want to comply with open records law and their way of doing so is exorbitant fees designed to discourage citizens from retrieving open records.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Sounds very odd. You're supposed to be able to pick up event reports at any metro substation.

Plus, the standard fee (if it's not a flat rate like $5 or $10) is $1 per page. Is the event report 38 pages? Just seems like such an odd number.

Click to expand...

This is my first post on the forum. I work for Metro at one of the local area commands. To obtain a copy of a police report, one must go to the Police Records Bureau in City Hall downtown. Stations are not permitted to release reports by policy, unless it is a report you filed at that station, at which point you get 1 (sometimes 2 if the report taker is nice) copy at the time of report.

With that said, the report the thread starter is picking up is the dispatch printout from the 413 (man with a gun) event he was stopped in. Since the officers took no action, no report was taken. The place where that must be picked up is LVMPD Dispatch. I can tell you that it will be difficult to read. It will have the initial notes from the call taker in an abbreviated short hand. Below that it will havea line with a time, along with the date and the name of the dispatcher who entered it. Below that, it will have something like "2V44 AO" which is the unit call sign arriving at a location other than the original call location. ER means en route and AS means assigned.

The officers will likely have a very brief note at the end with something like "Made contact with subject who was legally open carrying." and then a disposition which should either be "M" or "J" in this case.

I hope I helped. As far as being stopped - since a citizen call, our department policy requires us to respond. No matter the circumstances, a 413 call is also considered high priority and must have a minimum of 2 units. Most officers at Metro are not against open carry or gun rights, and frankly, get annoyed when people call about it. To sit and talk about getting ammo to file a complaint on the officers is wrong IMHO, since they are following policy, just like they mustenforce a law even if it is not Constitutional until a court throws it out.

imported post

crazynova wrote:

I hope I helped. As far as being stopped - since a citizen call, our department policy requires us to respond. No matter the circumstances, a 413 call is also considered high priority and must have a minimum of 2 units. Most officers at Metro are not against open carry or gun rights, and frankly, get annoyed when people call about it. To sit and talk about getting ammo to file a complaint on the officers is wrong IMHO, since they are following policy, just like they mustenforce a law even if it is not Constitutional until a court throws it out.

Click to expand...

There are two comments/questions I have here.

1. I understand police must respond to all citizen calls IF DISPATCHED. What is being done pre-dispatch (at the 911 intake) to calm down callers? In this event's log, the initial dispatch confirmed he "IS NOT DOING ANY THREATS WITH 413", followed by a repeat of the same 8 minutes later when officers arrived on scene. Since the intake knew there were no threats or anything illegal happening, shouldn't advice be given to the caller that the activity is legal and nothing can be done?

2. Generally speaking, no one wants to see officers in any kind of trouble. We know the job is immensely difficult. I think the general consensus here is that in this particular event, nothing illegal really happened. The citizen consented to being stopped and the initial contact officer was professional. Had this been a non-consensual stop, in which the citizen demanded to be let go but was not, there would be considerably more reason to file a complaint. An example of when a complaint should be filed:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/20477.html

Tim

imported post

I don't know what is being done at dispatch, since I don't work over there, but it is a liability thing. Just like when we get to a call and tell medical to disregard, they show up anyhow, because if they cancel, and the person dies, its a lawsuit on them. Some of our officers will even get 413 calls, drive by, see someone walking down the street with a holster, and just keep going though. Also, the caller in this case was at least honest. Most end up saying "they threatened me with it" and when the officer questions them after they get there, it is found it never left the holster.

Also, don't go to the Motel 6 at 195 E Trop. They will attempt to place you in cuffs and detain you for OC'ing on property. (security, not police). The Boulevard Mall will also have you trespassed.

imported post

crazynova wrote:

Also, don't go to the Motel 6 at 195 E Trop. They will attempt to place you in cuffs and detain you for OC'ing on property. (security, not police).

Click to expand...

I don't know what powers security guards have in Nevada, but since OCing is a lawful activity, I would think that any attempt to cuff a citizen for doing so would probably constitute battery, kidnapping or something along those lines ... does anyone know more about the legalities of this?

imported post

Does anyone know whether this Motel 6 has gaming? If so, their security would be exempt from liability under NRS 171.1235 IF (and ONLY IF) they have reason to believe a felony has been committed. All they have to do is allege you are a felon, in which case they have reason to believe you are committing a felony by possessing a firearm. This would be a stretch obviously, but I think it's how they'd get away with it ONCE. The SECOND time is another story.

NRS 200.460 covers false imprisonment:
Whether or not security is armed, arresting/detaining you, which very likely also includes your disarmament, with the implicit threat of having your own deadly weapon used against you, would be a felony. It sounds like someone in the police department has personal knowledge of Motel 6 doing this very thing.

As a felony, police have no discretion in effecting the arrest, and so my question is why haven't these security guys been arrested?

Another thought is that if someone attempts to commit a felony upon me, do I have a right to defend myself? I know the answer. Yikes!

imported post

crazynova wrote:

I don't know what is being done at dispatch, since I don't work over there, but it is a liability thing.

Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court has held that police have no duty to protect anyone (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278)

imported post

rpyne wrote:

crazynova wrote:

I don't know what is being done at dispatch, since I don't work over there, but it is a liability thing.

Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court has held that police have no duty to protect anyone (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278)

Click to expand...

I am well aware of that, as are most officers. Police officers don't always agree with department policy, city or county codes, state laws, or even federal laws, but it is thier job to enforce whatever laws are on the books. Filing a complaint against an officer for following department policy or a law (even if unconstitutional) doesn't do any good. If you are unhappy, challenge the law, not the officer, because the minute you start talking to the officer like he is an idiot and doesn't know the law, is the minute he will stop being at all friendly to you.

imported post

crazynova-

It's an interesting question. Does an officer enforce city/county or state laws? How about federal laws? What happens when there's a conflict.....the city explicitly says it's OK but the county explicitly says it is not? Or, the state says the county's law is void, but the law is still on the books?

The question becomes, if a law is unconstitutional, or there is a conflict between laws (whether federal, state, county or city), what does the officer do? There is no question that an officer enforces the laws on the books, only what process he/she goes through when a conflict exists.

I agree that singling out an officer in a complaint MAY not be the right thing to do, as I agree with you that most police officers are good people, but I would suggest that the average citizen has little other recourse. There are unconstitutional laws on the books that are fought in the following ways:

1.) Legislatively -- very difficult and time consuming
2.) On a jury voting NOT GUILTY by jury nullification -- easy if you happen to find yourself on a jury, otherwise impossible
3.) Filing a motion in court -- expensive and time consuming
4.) Filing a complaint for the unconstitutional behavior -- easy and free

So while it may not be the intention to single out or otherwise "get in trouble" a specific officer, what might an average citizen do?

Tim

imported post

timf343 wrote:

As the detainment was not lawful, neither was disarming you. Firearms are required to be registered, but "checking" registration does not form the basis of a lawful stop. Again, police must have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Let's say you're driving in your car. A cop is not allowed to pull you over just to see if you have a valid driving license; the cop must have RAS that you have committed a crime. Likewise, a cop is not allowed to detain you simply to check if your gun is licensed or has been stolen.

crazynova said:

rpyne wrote:

I am well aware of that, as are most officers. Police officers don't always agree with department policy, city or county codes, state laws, or even federal laws, but it is thier job to enforce whatever laws are on the books. Filing a complaint against an officer for following department policy or a law (even if unconstitutional) doesn't do any good. If you are unhappy, challenge the law, not the officer, because the minute you start talking to the officer like he is an idiot and doesn't know the law, is the minute he will stop being at all friendly to you.

Click to expand...

I was reading this old thread, mostly because I have been going to the Dry Cleaners alot, for my helmet ticket court stuff. The dry cleaners are the ones who called the 413 call into METRO. I have OC'ed in there a dozen times now and had a nice conversation with the lady who called METRO. It is cool to see her come around, I hope that METRO went back and talked to her as I asked and let her know that everything was cool.

The reason I quoted crazynova (remember he is a cop) is the fact that he says they have to enforce the laws that are on the books, I guess my response to that today would be, if so.... why do you not swear an Oath to the NRS.