one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESv-39IT1QY

I got this vid from another ( cal guns) forum, seems like a person is Sparks NV got his handgun taken and some stuff stolen by the PD, IDK why they still have his gun if he isn't being charged-he probably pissed them off.

Yes.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84230-Suspicionless-stops

He just posted up the audio up on gen chat.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84802-arrested-for-OC-while-intoxicated

We have, however, open carried at Las Vegas DUI checkpoints with success. Police are very professional on the OC topic. This photo is of two OCDO members at the checkpoint gathering evidence that will hopefully one day eliminate checkpoints in the Las Vegas area entirely.

And even though we were there, working in a very obvious way against police, they didn't harass us. We even later went and held up bright neon yellow signs of our own, and a motorcycle officer watching for red-light-runners sat just feet from us for a few minutes and didn't seem the least bit concerned about our presence.

Something that strikes me is that he complains about being detained and falsely accused, yet he uses the images of several departments that would never be present at a Sparks, Nv. checkpoint. I see Carson City Sheriff, Lyon Co. Sheriff, Reno P.D., and a couple more departments which may or may not have been present. He never identifies the departments directly involved with the checkpoint, he just lumps all departments in together rather they were there or not.

He claims that a "Carson County" sheriff's deputy signaled him to stop, where exactly is Carson County and why would they be in Sparks Nv. which is in Washoe Co.?

I believe that he hurts his cause more than he helps because of the way he plays fast and loose with the facts. I think he would make a much better impact if he would just stick to the truth and not try to make it worse than it is.

I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.

Gordie said:

I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.

Click to expand...

Because the constitution applies to everyone not just unarmed people. there are no rights that are forfeited by virtue of being armed. The police took an oath to uphold the constitution, they can't treat someone differently simply because they are exercising one of those rights.

Gordie said:

Something that strikes me is that he complains about being detained and falsely accused, yet he uses the images of several departments that would never be present at a Sparks, Nv. checkpoint. I see Carson City Sheriff, Lyon Co. Sheriff, Reno P.D., and a couple more departments which may or may not have been present. He never identifies the departments directly involved with the checkpoint, he just lumps all departments in together rather they were there or not.

He claims that a "Carson County" sheriff's deputy signaled him to stop, where exactly is Carson County and why would they be in Sparks Nv. which is in Washoe Co.?

I believe that he hurts his cause more than he helps because of the way he plays fast and loose with the facts. I think he would make a much better impact if he would just stick to the truth and not try to make it worse than it is.

I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.

Click to expand...

If I remember right. He was coming home from a racing event with his motorcycle in the back of his truck. It wasn't like he went out looking for check points. He was just trying to get home like any other person would.

This is an outrage, I'll be talking with Internal Affairs of Sparks PD. I called them just now and no supervisor is there.

I started tagging along with Tim, (why should he be happy) and was at the checkpoint that he showed the picture of. I went through on my motorcycle, and I am lefty so strong side out. All I said was "I do not consent X2 and then it was, "have a nice evening Sir." Not bad at all, and they noticed for sure.

Gordie said:

Something that strikes me is that he complains about being detained and falsely accused, yet he uses the images of several departments that would never be present at a Sparks, Nv. checkpoint. I see Carson City Sheriff, Lyon Co. Sheriff, Reno P.D., and a couple more departments which may or may not have been present. He never identifies the departments directly involved with the checkpoint, he just lumps all departments in together rather they were there or not.

He claims that a "Carson County" sheriff's deputy signaled him to stop, where exactly is Carson County and why would they be in Sparks Nv. which is in Washoe Co.?

I believe that he hurts his cause more than he helps because of the way he plays fast and loose with the facts. I think he would make a much better impact if he would just stick to the truth and not try to make it worse than it is.

I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.

Click to expand...

You are swimming in the deep end of the pool. Get out and join the children wading in the kiddie pool.

http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/...?instance=secondary_story_bullets_left_column

http://www.rgj.com/article/20101219/NEWS01/101219009/Sparks-checkpoint-nets-21-arrests-11-for-DUI

http://www.sparkspd.com/aggregator/sources/1

My primary intent was to go home. I'm not in the business of promoting open carry and the seat of my truck is a lousy place to do that were I so inclined.

I am a bit torn on this whole issue.

While I agree with the driver and will be calling and complaining myself, sometimes it is better to cooperate while stating that you rights are being violated and fighting the battle with a lawyer, not on the street. If he had cooperated and spoke his mind, there would have been no arrest.

Cops making **** up to further an investigation of an uncooperative individual? Yes
Uncooperative individual making a cops dangerous job harder. Yes

Just remember that it is not the offers fault that we have a shitty system. Most of them are trying to do their job safely while playing the political game. Don't fight the war with them as you will always loose some way or another. Cooperate, state what rights are being infringed, and take it up with a good attorney the next day.

I however am pissed that his personal property was removed and not returned. That by it self (removal of evidence by the police) should be enough to get the case kicked out of the courts.

MilitaryMike said:

Uncooperative individual making a cops dangerous job harder. Yes

Click to expand...

You know....I understand the base sentiment here, but I have a problem with statements like this.

I worked as a welder/fabricator building rail cars and open water cargo barges in a heavy industrial shop for almost 15 years. There are procedures we must follow in order for our product to meet federal and industry standards for integrity and safety...much the same way there are procedures for LEO's to follow in order to NOT violate our rights.

'Uncooperative individuals', as you describe them, would be much like a supervisor or QA (quality assurance) inspector checking on a worker to make sure they're not using a 'backing bar' to close an out of tolerance gap, or sweeping a bunch of scrap metal into a butt-weld as 'filler' in order to fill the gap in five passes instead of eight, and finish the job faster.

Is it easier to do that? Oh hell yeah.

Is it 'done right'? Oh, hell no. And it endangers people unnecessarily in both situations.

LEO's who get their knickers in a twist (calling them 'uncooperative') because a citizen knows the limitation of their authority and hold them to it, are like the production worker who blames the QA inspector for getting caught putting out crap work.

Phssthpok said:

LEO's who get their knickers in a twist (calling them 'uncooperative') because a citizen knows the limitation of their authority and hold them to it, are like the production worker who blames the QA inspector for getting caught putting out crap work.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

In the case of the welder, there is a clearly-repeatable standard. With the LEO, each contact must be handled on an individual basis. The guy who knows his rights and is unwilling to give an inch MAY be a good guy who just won't be pushed around, or he may be a bad guy, smugly getting away with something. The cop has to figure out which he is dealing with, and act accordingly -- and once he has made the judgment, it is hard to go back and start again.

When I meet with a cop, I try to be friendly, and project that I am a good guy and cheerfully cooperate to the extent that I am required by law, but not willing to give more to the cop than the cop is supposed to have.

DVC said:

Not quite.

In the case of the welder, there is a clearly-repeatable standard.

Click to expand...

So...federal and state laws are not clearly established repeatable standards by which officers are bound to operate?

With the LEO, each contact must be handled on an individual basis.

Click to expand...

True...much like a welder who must must make the conscious choice to weld *this* piece either in accordance with the regulations or not, just like the last piece.

The guy who knows his rights and is unwilling to give an inch MAY be a good guy who just won't be pushed around, or he may be a bad guy, smugly getting away with something. The cop has to figure out which he is dealing with, and act accordingly -- and once he has made the judgment, it is hard to go back and start again.

Click to expand...

And that illustrates the kind of thinking that has gotten us to where we are. You see...the way our system is set up, the cop can 'know' that he's dealing with 'a bad guy, smugly getting away with something', but if he has no PROOF (and the 'bad guy' is legally preventing him for gaining any) then he has no choice but to let him go. Giving LEO's a pass on violating rights just so they can bag a 'bad guy' is just plain WRONG. The ends DO NOT justify the means.

Hey here's a thought. Cops don't do anything until we transfer somebody from our custody into their custody, or we give them a warrant to take somebody into custody. Crazy talk huh? That's the way it was supposed to be before police became institutionalized and unionized.

Yard Sale said:

You are swimming in the deep end of the pool. Get out and join the children wading in the kiddie pool.

http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/...?instance=secondary_story_bullets_left_column

http://www.rgj.com/article/20101219/NEWS01/101219009/Sparks-checkpoint-nets-21-arrests-11-for-DUI

http://www.sparkspd.com/aggregator/sources/1

My primary intent was to go home. I'm not in the business of promoting open carry and the seat of my truck is a lousy place to do that were I so inclined.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the different agencies. Sorry for the confusion, I just didn't see what business a cop has outside their own jurisdiction (still don't even though they justify it in the papers) and I don't read the papers very much. This operation begs an obvious question, is there so little for cops to do in their own jurisdictions that they must travel to others to have something to do? If so, I see some easy places to cut spending in these tight financial times.

Speaking of the money, I'm glad that the Washoe County School District Police Department was there to collect some of our tax dollars, I guess we wouldn't want them to miss out on some grant funded (aka tax payer funded) overtime.

Well the School Police sort of had a reason to feed at the trough. Seized vehicles were taken to a high school parking lot. The mobile command center was parked there and they had canopies set up there. Here is how they left one canopy at the high school:

By a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional

Is the contention that the checkpoint was not properly conducted? If so how? And if your going to say how it was run you should know the legal requirements to conduct one.

Everyone is happy when there is a decision by the Supreme Court that they like, well I don't like the fact that they are legal but the US Supreme Court has said they are and so they are.

It's very hypocritical when you will listen to only the parts of the Constitution or the decisions that the Supreme Courts that you agree with. But then rail against someone doing that same from the anti-gun position.

Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.

Phoenix David said:

Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.

Click to expand...

Standing on the 5th Amendment is obstruction?

Vegassteve said:

Standing on the 5th Amendment is obstruction?

Click to expand...

No. He could have remained mute but obey the lawful orders of the police. I.E when they told him to get out of the car. Obstruction. I hope they throw the book at him.

Phoenix David said:

By a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional

Click to expand...

That's a gross misrepresentation of Sitz. The Rehnquist court found suspicionless seizures at roadblocks to be per se violations of the fourth amendment and unconstitutional. The court allowed them anyway, thus they are legal where allowed by states.

Is the contention that the checkpoint was not properly conducted? If so how? And if your going to say how it was run you should know the legal requirements to conduct one.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a dui checkpoint or sobriety checkpoint in the Nevada Revised Statues, nor in the local muni code. If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.

Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.

Click to expand...

Obstruction of what? The road? Arrested under what law? If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.