Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Show ID on LEO demand in Nevada?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    Is there any mandate under Nevada law that requires me to show identification on demand of a law enforcement officer?
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    You are not required to carry ID unless you're driving a car. Unless pulled over for a traffic offense, there is no legal requirement to show your ID.

    NRS 171.123 requires you to "identify yourself". The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted "Identify Yourself" as meaning stating your name only. You need not provide your address, date of birth, social security number, or any other piece of information. Just your name verbally meets the legal requirement.

    Also, that law requires LEO to have reasonable and articulable suspicion (a Terry stop) of a crime. If LEO does not has RAS, you're under no obligation to even state your name.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    In that case I have these questions as well:

    1. Before giving my name to a LEO, am I permitted to ask them on what grounds I am being questioned?
      Are they required to tell me their reasonably articulate suspicion?
      If they say something to the effect that it is because I'm OCing or that they are performing a routine safty check can I then refuse to give my name, as there is no implied offense in that statement?
      Would it be prudent to just give them my name anyway?
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    260

    Post imported post

    Each case has its own feel to it. There's no absolutes.

    It's always good to open up with "what seems to be the problem officer?" Instead of him getting the chance to say "Do you know why I stopped you?" mainly because he's trying to get you to admit guilt....of anything.

    If he doesn't articulate (speak) his resonable suspicion, immidiately ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. If you're detained, you're obligated to give your name. If he doesn't answer affirmative, then you're not being detained, and should leave and avoid answering any other questions. IMO a cop won't usually confess to having no legit reason to stop you, they'd rather make up a legit one (they're allowed to lie, if you lie its a crime - obstruction). So he can lie that "you match the description of a suspect" and that's why he pulled you over.

    I've gone on a handful of ride alongs with Metro and they always ask for DOB, SSN, and as much info as they can get to ID you, even if you're just walking down the street. That being said- they might keep you detained, and keep snooping if you deny them. I would still most likely deny answering any questions 90% of the time.

    Hope that helps.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I numbered your questions in the quote.

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    In that case I have these questions as well:

    1. 1. Before giving my name to a LEO, am I permitted to ask them on what grounds I am being questioned?
      2. Are they required to tell me their reasonably articulate suspicion?
      3. If they say something to the effect that it is because I'm OCing or that they are performing a routine safty check can I then refuse to give my name, as there is no implied offense in that statement?
      4. Would it be prudent to just give them my name anyway?

    1. You can ask them anything you want, but they are not required to tell you.

    2. No.

    3. You can object, but whether or not you can refuse depends on whether or not you are being detained. Detained=must provide name if asked, or Driver's License if driving.

    4. I wouldn't unless I absolutely had to, but that's more of a personal decision. It may make things go faster or slower, depending upon the circumstances. More on that in a second.

    The easiest way to navigate these murky waters is to imagine that there are three possible states you can be in when dealing with the police: Under arrest, detained, or free.

    A free man can terminate the conversation and walk away/ drive away whenever he chooses to. I recommend you do just that. Any conversation you have can (and will) be used against you, and the officer is not required to give you a Miranda warning or anything like that because, legally speaking, you are just two human beings having a voluntary conversation. Asking "Am I free to go?" is the easiest way to determine that. Any answer other than "no"means you are a free man.

    A detained man is being held temporarily for investigative or administrative purposes. A traffic stop is the classic case. They may cuff you, or pat you down outside your clothes for weapons, or if they feel something brittle that could be a weapon, they can reach into your pockets for that item. Or they may do none of that, and just tell you that you are not free to go. Just like a free man, the officer does not need togiveyou a Miranda warning. That's why LEOs prefer to keep you in this limbo as long as possible. They must have probable cause to do so, or what the courts have called reasonable, articulable suspicion (often called RAS on this board) of a crime. In other words, they can't just have "a funny feeling" or a sense that "something wasn't right," they have to have a clear reason that can be put into words, like "I saw his hand move down like he was hiding something" or "I smelledmarijuana" etc. The key is, this is what he has to tell the court, not you. They need an RAS to justify the initial detainment later. And if it seems like this is a vague and manipulable requirement, it is. The only thing they have to tell you is that you are detained/ not free to go/ something equivalent.

    When you are being detained, the NV law says you must give your full name, when asked. If you believe that the detention was unlawful, state your objections, but you still must provide your name.You do not have to answer anything else, and you shouldn't answer anything else. You fight unlawful detentions in court, not verbally.

    Arrest speaks for itself, so I'll only add one thing, from a conversation I had once:

    ME: I assert my right to remain silent.
    OFFICER: You're not under arrest, so you don't have a right to remain silent.
    ME: Good to know. In that case I freely choose not to say anything.
    From that point on I said nothing other than asking periodically if I were free to go.

    That leads me to my final point. Declining to give your name when you are a free man is usually the fastest way out. "No thanks! I don't wish to talk," you say over your shoulder as you walk off, and that's it. Once you are detained or arrested, it is now a legal requirement, soprudence (Question 4, above)has nothing to do with it. They are collecting evidence against you, so your job is to not help them in any way whatsoever. Just the name, as required, and nothing more. Shut the hell up.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henderson, ,
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    I made up these little bus cards....
    If i am stopped for anything, i hand them a card...


    My name is: Don Spencer
    I am a law abiding American Citizen.
    I DO NOT consent to any search of my person or property.
    If I am being detained for any reason, I stand on the 4,5,6th amendment.
    I Request my attorney be present before answering any questions.
    May I please be on my way.


    end of story...say nothing to the leo......




  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    I would do some research on Hiibel VS Nevada if I were you. It doesn't appear to be as cut & dry as some people are making it out to be.

    Here's the video of the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APynGWWqD8Y

    http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/su...entary/hiivsix

  8. #8
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    In that video, There was a report of a possible assault. Also note that the person arrested did not identify himself AT ALL; he didn't even state his name. While the video did not show him driving a vehicle, he was with a vehicle parked on the side of a road, there was a person in the passenger seat. his operation of the vehicle was implied therefor I believe the officer was within the law to request that he produce a drivers license rather than simply stating his name.

    This was not a random police encounter, they where responding to a report of a potentially violent crime. It wasn't as if they saw someone taking a load off under a shade tree enjoying a nice day and decided to question him for no reason.

    If I where walking down the street minding my own business and police saw that I was openly carrying a firearm and decide to stop me just to fish for a crime to charge me with, I only have to state my name. If there is no RAS for the stop, and I don't answer any questions that may give them one, any evidence gathered from the encounter can be suppressed in court.

    LEO: Sir take your hands out of you pockets and stand still!
    Me: Hello officer, am I being detained?
    LEO: I'm conducting and investigation, Can you produce identification?
    Me, Sure officer, my name is John Smith May I go now?
    LEO: I need to see your ID.
    Me: I have identified myself to you as required by law, If I am being detained I exercise my constitutional rights under the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. If I am not being detained may I please leave?
    LEO: Just wait here (This is where he will handcuff me, and place me in front of his car while he determines if he has RAS with his dispatch or sergeant)
    Me: (nothing, I've already said everything I need to)

    At this point two things are going to happen. I'm going to be arrested or cited for violating a law or he will excuse me.

    You face your accuser in a court of law, not at the scene of the arrest.

    If I am arrested, my person will be searched and my Identification card will be taken along with my personal property. If the judge finds there was no RAS to even make contact or detain me in the first place, any information or evidence derived there after would be then excluded and the charges would be dismissed, At least in theory. I may have to go to the appellate court to have erroneous decisions by the judge over turned.

    Here is a synopses of an actual motion to suppress. This was a real case, i'm not quoting directly.

    Lawyer: Why did you make contact with the defendant?
    LEO (on stand): We received a report that someone was sleeping in a car.
    Lawyer: When you arrived what did you see?
    LEO: I saw the defendant sleeping in the car.
    Lawyer: Was the car legally parked?
    LEO: Yes
    Lawyer: How was the defendant positioned in the car?
    LEO: He was reclined in the drivers seat with his hands folded on his chest.
    Lawyer: Did you see anything that would indicate that a crime had, was or would be committed?
    LEO: no
    Lawyer: Why then did you attempt to wake my client?
    LEO: I wanted to see if there was an imminent danger to his health and/or safety.
    Lawyer: Did he appear to be in any form of distress?
    LEO: No
    Layer: Could you tell if he was breathing?
    LEO: Yes I could see that he was breathing.
    Layer: Was there any blood or vomit at the scene of the arrest?
    LEO: no, none
    Lawyer: what did you do then?
    LEO: I knocked on the window with my flash light.
    Lawyer: and then what happened?
    LEO: after a period of time he did not respond so I tried the handle of the driver's door and opened it.
    Lawyer: how long did you wait for the defendant to wake before you opened the door?
    LEO: about 10-15 seconds?
    Lawyer: do you think that was a reasonable amount of time for the defendant to become aware of his surroundings and make contact with you, voluntarily opening the door or rolling down the window himself?
    LEO: Be believed so.
    (This is effing great what happened here)

    Judge: Counselor, I've heard enough. Officer Pinhead, you are excused from the stand, please remain in the court room. After hearing the testimony presented to this court I find that probable cause did not exist to permit a warrant-less entry to the defendant's vehicle. I must apply the same standard of probable cause to the community care-taking exception to the fourth amendment that I would apply to evidence of a criminal offense. I find that there was neither reasonable suspicion that a crime had, did or would occur nor was there reasonable suspicion that the defendant was in any immediate danger of life or limb. I therefore grant the defendants motion to suppress all evidence gathered thereafter, and the charges of OWI First Offense are hear-by dismissed, Counsel for the prosecution you may appeal this decision in appellate court.

    Judge: Officer pinhead, I am hear-by submitting a judicial reprimand to your department chief. Because this is not the first time you have been alleged to violate a persons fourth amendment rights, I would be surprised if you allowed to continue serving as a law enforcement officer. All parties are dismissed.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    The Hiibel case has some important differences:

    1.) Allegations of assault were made against Hiibel.
    2.) Matching the description of the assault suspect, Hiibel was required to identify himself under NRS 171.123.
    3.) Having failed to identify himself, the arrest was proper.

    If there is no RAS to detain a person, that person is NOT required to identify himself. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, the officer need not articulate his RAS to you, so you really have no way of knowing for sure whether the officer has the true lawful authority to detain you.

    As such, if asked for my name, I'll give it. But from now on, I'll never give any other information. I won't spell my name, provide my date of birth, social security number, address, or show ID. I won't explain "where I'm going" or "where I'm coming from" or "what I'm doing here".


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •