Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Case law

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

    Post imported post

    Can anyone tell me the name of the case where the Nevada Supreme court ruled that an individual simply stating their full nae to the police is sufficient to satisfy their requirement to identify themselves? This of course does not apply to individuals operating a motor vehicle.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    I don't know if this is what you were talking about, but an opinion was created as part of the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada in one of the appeals.

    In part:
    Hiibel appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on October 20, 2003. Oral argument was held on March 22, 2004. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 21, 2004, holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) is constitutional under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion noted, however, "[a]s we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the office by other means -- a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make -- the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs."
    Hiibel ultimately lost his appeal, because he refused to identify at all.

    The synopsis I had found previously is here http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html Obviously I'm sure you can find more info if you google the case.

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

    Post imported post

    Thats exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Is there any case law on declining to identify for a suspicionless stop? NRS clearly requires R.A.S. to require identification.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Yard Sale wrote:
    NRS clearly requires R.A.S. to require identification.
    I believe the case law above is in direct reference to that NRS. You're only required to provide a DL while driving. If you're simply out and about, there's no law requiring you to carry identification, therefore, the above opinion was added in reference to the law requiring you to identify your self verbally to an officer who has RAS.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Yard Sale wrote:
    Is there any case law on declining to identify for a suspicionless stop? NRS clearly requires R.A.S. to require identification.
    As I posted in "Detained on the strip" I personally believe there IS case law, as established in Hiible:

    Phssthpok wrote:
    .....In my pocket I carry only some cash and a BORSE.

    Also, bear in mind that in HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
    NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.
    where..

    Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
    SCOTUS held that :

    Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.
    Think about that for a moment....according to SCOTUS, absent "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (think: Terry v. Ohio) YOU ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME. Another SCOTUS quote:

    Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
    If you get them to admit that you have not broken any laws that they are aware of, then Terry is NOT satisfied, and the identify statute cited in Hiible becomes moot. The protections of the Fourth MUST be satisfied by a VALID 'Terry' stop (read: reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed) for the Nevada statute to be lawfully enforceable.

    Further, their attempt obtain ID to 'determine if you were a felon in possession of a firearm' is a blatant violation of the fifth . Yet another SCOTUS quote from Hiible:

    Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445.
    If you were, in fact a felon, their attempts to compel you to disclose your name/ID is a direct violation of the fifth as it would open you up to criminal charges. (See 18 USC, sec 241)

    Remember.....with the law on your side, the further they take you down the yellow brick road, the more solid your case against them becomes.

    (All quotes are from HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
    NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., and emphasis mine)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Interesting. My issue is with suspicionless stops. Imagine these scenarios...



    Cop: Hey you, stop. Let me see some identification.

    Open carrier: No. GFYS.

    Cop: You are under arrest for obstruction.



    Cop: We're conducting a DUI checkpoint. Roll down your window.

    Driver: No.

    Cop: Driver's license, registration, and insurance!

    Driver: GFYS.

    Cop: You are under arrest for obstruction.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    Yard Sale wrote:
    Interesting. My issue is with suspicionless stops. Imagine these scenarios...



    Cop: Hey you, stop. Let me see some identification.

    Open carrier: No. GFYS.

    Cop: You are under arrest for obstruction.



    Cop: We're conducting a DUI checkpoint. Roll down your window.

    Driver: No.

    Cop: Driver's license, registration, and insurance!

    Driver: GFYS.

    Cop: You are under arrest for obstruction.

    In the first, you're legal. At which point, if the cop is willing to push the issue, he will arrest you for whatever you got stopped for in the first place, plus obstruction.

    In the second, you're sunk. If you are driving on the public highway (which is any street, ally or other improved road not on private property), you are required by law to provide DL, vehicle registration and proof of financial responsibility upon request by any cop with jurisdiction (I believe all Nevada cops have jurisdiction statewide). In your scenario, you add those to "failure to obey lawful instruction from peace officer," "suspicion of driving while intoxicated" etc.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Yard Sale wrote:
    Interesting. My issue is with suspicionless stops. Imagine these scenarios...



    Cop: Hey you, stop. Let me see some identification.

    Open carrier: No. GFYS. GFY is maybe a bad idea... Try this: "Sorry officer, I will not consent to a search, I don't believe I've done anything wrong. Am I being detained?Am I free to go?" (repeat as necessary)




    Cop: We're conducting a DUI checkpoint. Roll down your window.

    Driver: No.

    Cop: Driver's license, registration, and insurance!

    Driver: GFYS.

    Cop: You are under arrest for obstruction.

    And then like the guy above said, DUI check points have been upheld by the SOCTUS. It sucks, I don't like the idea, but it's what we got. Especially since when reported by the news, the police write 10x more infractions than they do DUI arrests.

    When driving, you must present ID when asked (assuming the stop is valid). They are allowed to verify your legality of driving that car. I always ask them why I'm being stopped before handing over my information. I've never had one yet refuse to tell me or just demand my papers first, I think I'd give them the 'no consent' speech until they at least tell me why I'm being stopped.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    DVC wrote:
    In the second, you're sunk. If you are driving on the public highway (which is any street, ally or other improved road not on private property), you are required by law to provide DL, vehicle registration and proof of financial responsibility upon request by any cop with jurisdiction (I believe all Nevada cops have jurisdiction statewide). In your scenario, you add those to "failure to obey lawful instruction from peace officer," "suspicion of driving while intoxicated" etc.
    Cites please. My contention is without RAS, the stop is unlawful and the demand for ID is unlawful. Or in a "legal" checkpoint stop, without RAS, the demand for ID is unlawful.

    You too, jfrey123. You assumed the stop is valid. I said specifically for suspicionless (unlawful) stops.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Ok, missed that part of your scenarios. The first one still applies. I won't submit to a search, I'll ask to be released until he does so.

    Second one, I've never had the 'privilage' of driving through a check point. Since they're checking for booze, and I obviously aren't drinking and driving, then the same discussion would apply (yes, I'm back pedaling after reading the questions harder lol). I believe you're correct on being stopped in a car still requiring RAS to require ID, which in most stops the RAS was your speeding violation or red light or whatever. Since the DUI checkpoint is that, just a checkpoint, and I'm not drunk, I'd contend that I'd like to go on my way. (I personally find DUI checkpoints invalid, just like the BP checkpoints 50 miles off the border in Mexico).



    "My ID officer? Have I done something wrong? Sorry, I don't consent to being searched, can I go now?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Yeah well I had really bad experience at a suspicionless checkpoint here a few months ago. Held hostage for Contempt of Cop. I produced DL, registration, and proof of insurance, but I'm wondering what will happen next time if I say GFYS. I'm wondering if they can make an obstruction charge stick without RAS prior to demanding papers.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    Yard Sale wrote:
    Yeah well I had really bad experience at a suspicionless checkpoint here a few months ago. Held hostage for Contempt of Cop. I produced DL, registration, and proof of insurance, but I'm wondering what will happen next time if I say GFYS. I'm wondering if they can make an obstruction charge stick without RAS prior to demanding papers.
    Always remain more professional than the officer. Using bad language is a bad idea. As stated in many of my other posts, RAS is something that's argued during a motion to suppress, not at the scene. If there was no RAS, any evidence obtained after you objected to the stop will be excluded, assuming the judge isn't already biased (using contemptuous language can bias a judge). If you remain professional with the officer the judge will be more apt to take you seriously.

    Judges who get their back up because a defendant was obnoxious may be inclined to force you to take your case to appellate court just to spite you; even if they know the evidence should be excluded. Appealing you conviction requires that you serve the imposed sentence or post appeal bond which is far more expensive than regular bond or bail bending a trail. Attorney fees are also extremely cost prohibitive when it comes to an appeal. This is why you don't see many people appealing sentences that are not likely to ruin their life.

    The same principal applies when states decide how much a fine should be. They don't want the cost of the fine to be more expensive than the cost to defend the charge, if they did, their court system would be backlogged with cases and they would get fewer convictions and earn less revenue.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    As for the MVC, NRS is clear:

    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)
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-4...l#NRS483Sec350


    "Surrender upon demand." NRS 483.350 appears to require no RAS for presentation.
    But, presenting such proof in court is defense against conviction. YMMV.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posting Permissions

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