• 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.

one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
That is irrelevant. If an LE steps over the line into rights violation against either, the result is the same. Lack of a conviction. It should be pointed out that many of the court cases cited about these rights are cases where it WAS illegal activity that was being investigated.

For instance, refusal to present a physical ID when it is not required is not the same as being "uncooperative," but it gets labeled that way.
 
Last edited:

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
OK I'll play your silly game cite where the police can tell you to take your hands out of your pocket? Please cite in federal, state or local law where you are allow to watch TV?

How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired? Unlike the TV commercial where the cab of the vehicle is filled with beer that sloshes out to the pavement, they have to use things like erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. It is generally accepted that smells do not penetrate glass. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.

It's no wonder there is such dislike of the OC community when it has such hypocrites


So, you can't cite any statute from Federal law, Nevada state law, or Local laws concerning the window correct? Me either. "show me your hands" is a lawful command based on the safety of the officers and all others around the individual being detained. "Roll down your window" is not a lawful command since it has nothing to do with the safety of the officers and everyone around them. The officers could clearly see the person through the glass and could tell they were in no danger.

Only when the OP rolled down his window did the officer alledgedly lie about "smelling alcohol". The OP was then directed out of the vehicle since the officer now had "reasonable suspision". Alledgedly there were no other indicators that the OP was drinking other than the "order of alcohol". According to the OP no charges were filed or the charges of DUI were dropped.

With the current information at hand you have to ask yourself, is rolling down the window worth you being falsely arrested? Since that appears what happened here.

Definition -- Hypocrite
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

If your going to name call then please try to get it right.
 

nomidlname

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Since driving is a privilege, not a right, can't the State regulate it as they need to? License, implied consent laws, etc...?

I guess you can make the arguement, that if you don't like traffic laws, then don't drive. Nobody if forcing you to drive. How many CAT buses are stopped in a DUI roadblock?...zero. How many taxis are stopped?...zero. How many joggers are stopped?...zero.

privilege vs. right ???

Nevada does have a Implied consent law. But that does not give officers carte blanche at a DUI check point.

NRS 484C.160 Implied consent to evidentiary test; exemption from blood test; choice of test; when blood test may be required; when other tests may be used; reasonable force authorized to obtain test in certain circumstances; notification of parent or guardian of minor directed to submit to test.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 3 and 4, any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access shall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his or her blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance to determine the concentration of alcohol in his or her blood or breath or to determine whether a controlled substance, chemical, poison, organic solvent or another prohibited substance is present, if such a test is administered at the direction of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be tested was:

(a) Driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance; or

(b) Engaging in any other conduct prohibited by NRS 484C.110, 484C.120, 484C.130 or 484C.430.

2. If the person to be tested pursuant to subsection 1 is dead or unconscious, the officer shall direct that samples of blood from the person be tested.

3. Any person who is afflicted with hemophilia or with a heart condition requiring the use of an anticoagulant as determined by a physician is exempt from any blood test which may be required pursuant to this section but must, when appropriate pursuant to the provisions of this section, be required to submit to a breath or urine test.

4. If the concentration of alcohol in the blood or breath of the person to be tested is in issue:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the person may refuse to submit to a blood test if means are reasonably available to perform a breath test.

(b) The person may request a blood test, but if means are reasonably available to perform a breath test when the blood test is requested, and the person is subsequently convicted, the person must pay for the cost of the blood test, including the fees and expenses of witnesses in court.

(c) A police officer may direct the person to submit to a blood test if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person:

(1) Caused death or substantial bodily harm to another person as a result of driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance or as a result of engaging in any other conduct prohibited by NRS 484C.110, 484C.130 or 484C.430; or

(2) Has been convicted within the previous 7 years of:

(I) A violation of NRS 484C.110, 484C.120, 484C.130, 484C.430, subsection 2 of NRS 488.400, NRS 488.410, 488.420 or 488.425 or a law of another jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct; or

(II) Any other offense in this State or another jurisdiction in which death or substantial bodily harm to another person resulted from conduct prohibited by a law set forth in sub-subparagraph (I).

5. If the presence of a controlled substance, chemical, poison, organic solvent or another prohibited substance in the blood or urine of the person is in issue, the officer may direct the person to submit to a blood or urine test, or both, in addition to the breath test.

6. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 3 and 5, a police officer shall not direct a person to submit to a urine test.

7. If a person to be tested fails to submit to a required test as directed by a police officer pursuant to this section and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be tested was:

(a) Driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance; or

(b) Engaging in any other conduct prohibited by NRS 484C.110, 484C.120, 484C.130 or 484C.430,

Ê the officer may direct that reasonable force be used to the extent necessary to obtain samples of blood from the person to be tested. Not more than three such samples may be taken during the 5-hour period immediately following the time of the initial arrest. In such a circumstance, the officer is not required to provide the person with a choice of tests for determining the concentration of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or another prohibited substance in his or her blood.

8. If a person who is less than 18 years of age is directed to submit to an evidentiary test pursuant to this section, the officer shall, before testing the person, make a reasonable attempt to notify the parent, guardian or custodian of the person, if known.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
Since driving is a privilege, not a right, can't the State regulate it as they need to? License, implied consent laws, etc...?

You are right to some degree, but the still have to have probable case for the stop for implied consent to apply. they can't just decide one day that they are going to stop all red cars and demand breath or blood samples. The road blocks are consensual stops. meaning that the departments are permitted to stop traffic and investigate DUI, but they may not continue to investigate someone without consent unless they can show reasonable suspicion. They may not use your refusal to consent as reasonable suspicion. An officer can not go before a judge and ask that a warrant be issued simply because he must have something to hide if he isn't willing to cooperate. there are three things they must have. Probable cause to believe that they will find certain evidence and where they will find it.

Now, warrantless searches have been authorized only under a very limited number of circumstances. one of these circumstances is known as the community care-taking exception to the fourth amendment. These are circumstances where the officer, having reasonable suspicion, also can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the time it would take to obtain a warrant places someone, be it the suspect, or anyone else in grave danger and risk of bodily harm. The same standard must be applied to the community care-taking exception as with reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring.

This is why Yard Sale should have just let them break out his window and drag him from the vehicle by force. He asked them if they were serving a warrant. since they did not indicate that they were, he was under no obligation to do anything because his stop was not based on anything other than they wanted to obtain consent. If the police truly had reasonable suspicion, they could have directed Yard Sale to park his car while they obtain a warrant from a judge, at which point he would have been obligated to allow them entry into the vehicle. They need that consent because no judge will issue a warrant based on nothing other than they happened upon a roadblock. Yard sale need not roll down his window any farther than to communicate that he did not consent.
 
Last edited:

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
Since driving is a privilege, not a right, can't the State regulate it as they need to? License, implied consent laws, etc...?

I guess you can make the arguement, that if you don't like traffic laws, then don't drive. Nobody if forcing you to drive. How many CAT buses are stopped in a DUI roadblock?...zero. How many taxis are stopped?...zero. How many joggers are stopped?...zero.

privilege vs. right ???

I will never consider driving a privilege until the government stops taxing me for owning and operating my vehicle, stops taxing me for the parts I purchase for its maintenance, stops taxing me for fuel and oil, stops taxing me for the building and maintenance of roadways, and stops taxing me for salaries those taxes help pay.
 
Last edited:

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
OC'ing or do it this way rOCking the sobriety checkpoint. This photo takes a sec to load as it is high resolution. but Shows the law enforcers putting the public at risk, I was standing at .23 miles and you can see their signes are quite short of the .25 minimum. Keep in mind the warning signes are to keep us safe, just like the DUI checkpoint is supposed to do. hmmmm I guess one just pays more than the other.

http://www.guerrillalawfare.com/checkpoint/07.jpg
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
I guess you can make the arguement, that if you don't like traffic laws, then don't drive. Nobody if forcing you to drive. How many CAT buses are stopped in a DUI roadblock?...zero. How many taxis are stopped?...zero. How many joggers are stopped?...zero.

If you are right about this, the checkpoint is illegal. You cannot discriminate which vehicles you're going to stop. For example, you couldn't stop every red car, or every car with a male driver. You have to follow a pattern of traffic flow. With the exception of heavy traffic situations, Metro stops ever vehicle (in heavy traffic, it might be every 3rd vehicle). If they don't stop the CAT bus or TAXI, they've violated court guidelines which prohibit that discrimination. They also have to stop tow trucks, limousines, hearses, ambulances, and even other police cruisers if the officers in that cruiser aren't assigned to the checkpoint.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired?
To summarize the 4th and 5th Ammendments: that is their problem to solve, not mine.

Overcoming constitutional protections is supposed to be difficult, by design. The degree of difficulty imposed on police "just tryin' to do their job" is no concern of mine.
 

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
Update

Update...

After yet another trial continuation without notice, I hired a private attorney ($$$$). New trial date is Feb. 23. My stolen gun is still held as "evidence" despite no firearm crime charged, alleged, or possible to charge by the city attorney. I've received not a word in response to my report of my stolen camera and notebook.

I've received not a word in response to my complaints to the Reno P.D. (re the drama queen twins) and to the Carson City Sheriff (re sheriff explorer Justin Bieber).

The good news is it's been so long, the statue of limitations for misdemeanors has expired and the cops can't write any more of their own complaints as liability cover charges if these are dismissed or I'm acquitted.

The guy who signed both complaints against me, the guy who said, "Oh yeah, I can smell the alcohol from here" (8-10 feet away) then reported a "slight" odor, the guy who did a blatantly illegal search for evidence before a doing an illegal half-assed inventory search, the guy who tampered with a camera containing exculpatory evidence ... he received a medal of valor from his police department in December.

Redacted reports are available at www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Since driving is a privilege, not a right, can't the State regulate it as they need to? License, implied consent laws, etc...?

I'm not sure where this curious idea that driving is privilege and is not a right comes from. We do not possess only those rights enumerated in the Constitution:

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

The only reason citizens get driver's licenses, thereby allegedly agreeing to implied consent laws, is because they are afraid of being caught driving (an activity nearly essential to life in modern society) without one and being restrained and kidnapped at gunpoint by a revenue-producer. Consent cannot be given under duress, so any implied-consent law is on its face, invalid.

Saying that driving is a privilege is kind of like saying you have a right to possess flintlock pistols, but possessing modern semiautomatics is privilege that can be licensed.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Since driving is a privilege, not a right, can't the State regulate it as they need to? License, implied consent laws, etc...?

I guess you can make the arguement, that if you don't like traffic laws, then don't drive. Nobody if forcing you to drive. How many CAT buses are stopped in a DUI roadblock?...zero. How many taxis are stopped?...zero. How many joggers are stopped?...zero.

privilege vs. right ???

Your argument is that drivers, in taking part of the privilege of using the roads, thereby forfeit their 4th amendment right to be protected against unreasonable search because they are using the public roads, correct?

Well, how far can the state take things like this?

Is there a right to use the sidewalk, or is that a privilege? If it is a privilege, then should an officer be justified in stopping anyone absent any crime and searching them, due to the implied consent of using the public property? Nobody is forcing you to use sidewalks. How about BLM land? Public parks? All public property? All locations other than your house? (The house is explicitly mentioned in the 4th amendment, as well as the third amendment, so surely our rights apply there.) What if someone lives in a motorized home? Does he have more rights against unlawful search and seizure than a regular person driving from one place to another?

If you say that it is okay to stop and detain motorists and search their vehicle absent any suspicion of a crime, then that creates a treacherous sloping path towards the creation of random arbitrary searches anywhere that one is not in their house.

What about other rights?

If the 4th amendment does not apply when in a motor vehicle, what about the 2nd amendment? Would it be legitimate to ban all guns from the highway?

How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired? Unlike the TV commercial where the cab of the vehicle is filled with beer that sloshes out to the pavement, they have to use things like erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. It is generally accepted that smells do not penetrate glass. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.

Witnessing Erratic driving = reasonable articulable suspicion of reckless driving or alcohol impairment. Stopping the motorist is therefore justified.

Stopping random cars to search for open containers = unreasonable suspicionless search.

How to investigators find missing people? They could do random house searches. You'd probably find more missing people that way. But they don't, because people have a right against unreasonable search and some level of reasonable articulable suspicion is required.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
For those who like the idea of random searches for no reason at all, ask yourself if you ever have in your possession anything that might land you afoul of this law:

NRS 205.080 Possession of instrument with burglarious intent; making, alteration or repair of instrument for committing offense; penalty.
1. Every person who makes or mends or causes to be made or mended, or has in his or her possession in the day or nighttime, any engine, machine, tool, false key, picklock, bit, nippers or implement adapted, designed or commonly used for the commission of burglary, invasion of the home, larceny or other crime, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ, or allow the same to be used or employed in the commission of a crime, or knowing that the same is intended to be so used, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
2. The possession thereof except by a mechanic, artificer or tradesman at and in his or her established shop or place of business, open to public view, shall be prima facie evidence that such possession was had with intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed in the commission of a crime.
[1911 C&P § 372; RL § 6637; NCL § 10322]—(NRS A 1989, 1453)

Basically, be in possession of any tool at any time of the day or night by any person other than a mechanic, at any place other than his shop, and that is prima facie evidence that you had burglarious intent. What kinds of tools are commonly used for the commission of burglary or other crime? You know, screwdrivers, flashlights, pliers, hammers, shovels, window breaking tools, hair pins. Basically, every day items.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
OK I'll play your silly game cite where the police can tell you to take your hands out of your pocket? Please cite in federal, state or local law where you are allow to watch TV?

The police have no authority to tell you to take your hands out of your pocket unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. If you're really interested, there are specific statutes and court precedent that says that police can detain you, and even haul you to jail if they have enough evidence and they can use a necessary amount of force. There are also statutes about disobeying lawful orders. In the course of a lawful action, they can give you orders which you can be penalized for disobeying. If they suspect you are the criminal, they can order you to stop and put your hands up. They can't tell anyone to do that for any reason whatsoever.

Laws tell you what you can't do, not what you can. Therefore there is no need for a law telling me I can watch TV. However, agents of the state are limited in their power by law. The law says they can detain and arrest people given sufficient evidence. However, absent evidence, there is no law that says they can do things like push people. In the course of performing a lawful action such as an arrest, they can push people (within reason.) Otherwise, it is assault, just as it would be if I approached an officer and pushed him. Of course, who is going to arrest the cop who unlawfully uses force? Probably nobody will hold the officer accountable for his actions, unless the consequences of those actions are very serious. But the rarity of enforcement of the law against the police does not mean that they are not bound to the law like the rest of us.

If I'm walking down the side walk, not doing anything suspicious, a cop has no more authority to force me to take my hands out of my pocket than I do to force him to take his hands out of his pocket. If you think otherwise, point me to the law that says I must obey every word uttered by a person with a badge on his chest, regardless of the circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
The Supreme Court has declared them constitutional so they are.

There is what the court says, and there is what is right. We were one vote away in Heller from the Supreme Court ruling that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. If the court had come to the conclusion that the constitution does not entail a right to bear arms, I think most intellectually honest people would realize that the constitution intended to grant a right to bear arms and would be able to see that the court had basically decided that the original meaning does not apply.

The Supreme Court declared them constitutional, therefore the police can act without fear of legal retribution. But that does not mean we cannot air grievances about the destruction of our rights as the framers intended them to be.

The Supreme Court has also held that Congress can basically create any law whatsoever, so long as they make a lame excuse about it relating to interstate commerce. But I think it is plainly evident that the Congress was originally intended by the founders to be limited in its scope and have specific legislative duties.

The legal situation, in theory, is that the government ought to be limited in scope to what the constitution, and laws created according to such a constitution specified, and that people should only be penalized for violating explicit written rules. Unfortunately, in our legal system, court precedent is basically the same as written law. Just as it is hard to police the police, how do we judge the judge?

If the courts hold that there is no right against unreasonable search and seizure in the specific case of the road, then I say we ought to amend the constitution and require explicitly for their to be rights against unreasonable search and seizure on the roads in addition to the current wording. And if we can't win on the federal level on the basis of constitution, we can still perhaps repeal the offensive laws themselves.

The offensiveness of random searches goes beyond perceived constitutional questions. Arbitrary search is injurious to the party searched without cause, and it is an idea harmful to freedom.
 
Last edited:

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Update...

After yet another trial continuation without notice, I hired a private attorney ($$$$). New trial date is Feb. 23. My stolen gun is still held as "evidence" despite no firearm crime charged, alleged, or possible to charge by the city attorney. I've received not a word in response to my report of my stolen camera and notebook.

I've received not a word in response to my complaints to the Reno P.D. (re the drama queen twins) and to the Carson City Sheriff (re sheriff explorer Justin Bieber).

The good news is it's been so long, the statue of limitations for misdemeanors has expired and the cops can't write any more of their own complaints as liability cover charges if these are dismissed or I'm acquitted.

The guy who signed both complaints against me, the guy who said, "Oh yeah, I can smell the alcohol from here" (8-10 feet away) then reported a "slight" odor, the guy who did a blatantly illegal search for evidence before a doing an illegal half-assed inventory search, the guy who tampered with a camera containing exculpatory evidence ... he received a medal of valor from his police department in December.

Redacted reports are available at www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf

Funny My Obstruction charge I obtained at a DUI roadblock was continued last week as well, I have a standby atty, since I refused the public defender, I am going Pro-se The prosecution said they did not have enough time to answer my motion to dismiss ....lol I was cited last feb. and they havn't built a case? no wonder they cannot get real criminals off the streets. (done venting) anyway I have what appears to be a decent Motion to dismiss for obstructing. and will let you know if it is succesful.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
File a motion to dismiss based on violation of your right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment (unless you waived that right within the first 60 days).

After all, if YOU don't show up, you're found guilty -- when the PROSECUTOR doesn't show up, they have no case to present.

Also send your warning letter to the County Attorney, informing the County that you are filing suit for return of your personal property (the pistol), and will also seek all pertinent costs and punitive damages in the amount of $100 per day from seizure until the return. You might also consider the possibility that they are putting your pistol to use, without your approval, in training or other ways, and if you consider this possible, add the demand for $100 per day in RENTAL.
 

Fisherman

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
160
Location
45R
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.

^^this^^
 

SDSG

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Las Vegas, NV
The video says that it is private... Is there anyway that someone can send me the public link or password? I am behind on following this and I'd like to learn more about the laws surrounding check points.
 

drdcup

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
53
Location
, ,
The police have no authority to tell you to take your hands out of your pocket unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime...............

If I'm walking down the side walk, not doing anything suspicious, a cop has no more authority to force me to take my hands out of my pocket than I do to force him to take his hands out of his pocket. If you think otherwise, point me to the law that says I must obey every word uttered by a person with a badge on his chest, regardless of the circumstances.

The new law is now called NRS.0UR12- Blanket response 'officer safety'.
 
Top