My Son Was Arrested in North Las Vegas

[TigerLily]

On May 26th, my 28 year old son, an open carrier, was stopped while driving his car in North Las Vegas.

He rolled his window partially and was ordered to lower it all the way because it was an "illegal tint."

Before reaching into his pocket to get his wallet, and while keeping his hands on his steering wheel, and to keep the cop from freaking, my son informed the cop that he was open carrying a loaded weapon.

The cop freaked and called for help and my son got out after at least three other officers arrived.

My son's girlfriend called me to inform me that my son was being arrested so I removed my gun so as not to escalate the situation and I went to the scene.

I walked toward the scene with my video cam and the cop that arrested my son approached me and met me half way, which was about 30 feet from the scene. The cop ordered me to go away and I asked if it was unlawful for me to video. He said, "Stay right there, then. Don't come any closer." I stayed put and told him I was the mother and had questions. That "cowboy" cop yanked the cam out of my hands, said, "I warned you," then cuffed me and shoved me into the back of a police car. My son was in another police car.

His car was impounded and I believe they were going to impound my motorcycle (even though the vehicles were both on private property.)

We both spent 24 hours in the holding tank. My son got pretty jacked up because he has had three MAJOR surgeries on his left arm and as you can imagine, they were certainly not gentle.

We were both arraigned on Tuesday in Judge Vanlandshoot's court. Of course we both plead not guilty to everything. And our trials are on July 26th.

My son's charges are as follows and I'm including to the best of my ability what the cop wrote on the citations - because his handwriting sucks!

Aggressive Driving, NRS 484.376.5
Did intentionally drive in such a manner by speeding above the posted speed limit, tailing, weaving in and out of traffic and change lanes multiple times within 100 feet in an unsafe and abrupt manner.

How is it possible to do what he described in 100 feet?



Dangerous Deadly Weapon in Vehicle, City Ordinance 9.32.080
Did have in his possession in an automobile (Lexus…) a deadly weapon Taurus 40 caliber #(undecipherable).


More than one Drivers License, NRS 483.232.4
Did willfully have in possession more than one drivers license in his wallet.

He had in his possession three NV dl's because the DMV had messed it up. He had a letter from the DMV that the cop refused to acknowledge. Therefore, he only had on VALID dl.

1. Except persons expressly exempted in NRS 483.010 to 483.630, inclusive, a person shall not drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license as a driver under the provisions of NRS 483.010 to 483.630, inclusive, for the type or class of vehicle being driven.


NRS 484.6195.1
Did have dark black window tint on all four windows which is more than (undecipherable.)

No testing was done on the tint.

Does anyone know of any other case in NLV in which a citizen was charged with and arrested for that obsolete city ordinance?

btw, the Judge said words to this effect, "I highly suggest you get a lawyer because that gun violation is concerning."

My son is attempting to find out if the prosecution will seek jail time. If not, he intends to defend himself and if convicted of anything, appeal it to district court and lawyer up there since the NLV Muni Court is a court of non record and any appeal will result in a trial de novo.

Any thoughts?

[TigerLily]

City of North Las Vegas Municipal Code – Dangerous/Deadly Weapon 9.32.080 Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle--Exceptions.

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation. (Ord. 596 § 1, 1978: prior code § 7.22.070)


Wouldn't the prosecution have to prove where my son was going and what he intended to do?

And, my husband found this juicy ordinance:

9.32.040 Dangerous or deadly weapon defined.
The term "dangerous or deadly weapons" includes, but is not limited to, any dirk or dagger; any knife with a blade three inches or more in length, and any snap-blade or spring-blade knife, regardless of the length of the blade; any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool; any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle; any dangerous or deadly weapon within the meaning of any law of this state restricting the use thereof; and any cutting, stabbing, or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm; and any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport. (Prior code § 7.22.040)


And he made this comment:

Seems to me, someone who is open carrying with a properly registered handgun in Clark County (NLV included - based upon their own definition) is not within the NLV City ordinance of having a "dangerous or deadly weapon" in a vehicle.... as long as it is not concealed, whereby a CC is required.

[TigerLily]

In retrospect I wonder if I had been open carrying, the way I usually do, if I would have been arrested. In my narrow experience, I've had better "luck" dealing with cops and filming when I open carry compared to when I don't.

[VW_Factor]

Sorry to hear about this. Hopefully things turn out nicely for you both.

[Vegassteve]

UGGHHH this sucks. I would also contact the NRAILA. Not that I am huge fan of them but they did try to bring this case.



Edit I see my question was answered in the other thread.

[Yard Sale]

Um, NLV's dangerous weapon law vis-a-vis firearms should be pre-empted by state law. Null and void.

There's NV case law on discretionary arrests for misdemeanors of the sort your son was arrested for.

We both spent 24 hours in the holding tank.

In retrospect I wonder if I had been open carrying, the way I usually do, if I would have been arrested.

Huh? Handcuffed, transported, and held is a de facto arrest. Also known as false arrest, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. Expect an "obstructing" cover charge as soon as you mention this, so you might not want to mention it for a year (statute of limitations for misdemeanor).

42 USC 1983 for the both of you.

[aadvark]

Nevada Revised Statute 268.418(1) Preempts North Las Vegas City Code 9.32.080, as it Pertains to Firearms, however; The Remainder of 9.32.080, concerning Hand-Held Weapons, is LAWFUL.

[thebigsd]

Make sure you or your son's lawyer FOIA any and all communications related to your son's traffic stop and subsequent arrests. Do this sooner than later. By the way, did you get your camera back?

[TigerLily]

Um, NLV's dangerous weapon law vis-a-vis firearms should be pre-empted by state law. Null and void.

There's NV case law on discretionary arrests for misdemeanors of the sort your son was arrested for.



Huh? Handcuffed, transported, and held is a de facto arrest. Also known as false arrest, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. Expect an "obstructing" cover charge as soon as you mention this, so you might not want to mention it for a year (statute of limitations for misdemeanor).

42 USC 1983 for the both of you.

I was cuffed and taken to a holding tank for 24 hours. Was arraigned on Tuesday for Obstructing Officer. Trial on July 26th, at 1:30 p.m. in Vanlandshoot's Court.

[TigerLily]

Make sure you or your son's lawyer FOIA any and all communications related to your son's traffic stop and subsequent arrests. Do this sooner than later. By the way, did you get your camera back?

We both did a formal motion for discovery - that's another story.

Got my cam back but the recording was "gone" and so were two of the stickers that were on my helmet.

[TigerLily]

Nevade Revised Statute 268.418(1) Preempts North Las Vegas City Code 9.32.080, as it Pertains to Firearms, however; The Remainder of 9.32.080, concerning Hand-Held Weapons, is LAWFUL.

9.32.080 Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle--Exceptions.

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation. (Ord. 596 § 1, 1978: prior code § 7.22.070)


I'm not understanding your point. My son had a registered gun that was confiscated and he was arrested because of it and had his car impounded because of it. What part of the ordinance does not apply?

[aadvark]

tigerlily:

My Point is The Ordinance is Illegal, in Regards to Firearms.

In Regards to Objects other than Firearms..., The Ordinance is Lawful.

Hand-Held Weapons are NOT Firearms under Nevada Law, therefore; a Local Government MAY Choose to Regulate such Hand-Held Weapons all that They would like.

Your Son, however, was Arrested Unlawfully, in Regards to Firearms.

Other Non-Firearm Charges, however, such as Tinted Windows, etc., MAY be Lawful Charges.

aadvark

[TigerLily]

tigerlily:

My Point is The Ordinance is Illegal, in Regards to Firearms.

In Regards to Objects other than Firearms..., The Ordinance is Lawful.

Hand-Held Weapons are NOT Firearms under Nevada Law, therefore; a Local Government MAY Choose to Regulate such Hand-Held Weapons all that They would like.

Your Son, however, was Arrested Unlawfully, in Regards to Firearms.

Other Non-Firearm Charges, however, such as Tinted Windows, etc., MAY be Lawful Charges.

aadvark

Okay, thanks for clarifying. After looking at the rest of the charges, there is no way any of the other charges can be substantiated in a "real" court.

At the risk of pontificating, my son said that one of the cops recognized me as having been on TV (as the open carrier that got handcuffed for videotaping while oc'ing). I sense that the added charges were put there to support the arrest.

1. The tint on the windows was not tested.
2. He only had one VALID DL - the other two were from NV and clearly NOT valid. The law states you can only have ONE valid DL. Now, if he had a "valid" DL from another state, that would be one thing, but the DLs he had were from NV and the cop refused to see the note from the DMV that explained the mess. The only "valid" one would have been the most current one - and that one was also wrong, but the DMV document that the cop refused to see explained the error.
3. The aggressive driving charge was supported by the officer's written statement that he weaved in and out of lanes several times in 100 feet. How is that even possible in a 35mph road? Was he referring to when my son got off the road and onto a private parking lot to comply with the detainment?

So we shall wait and see. Judge VanLandshoot told my son to lawyer up cause the firearm charge was "very serious." Interestingly, his case will be heard by a different judge (Judge: HOEFFGEN, SEAN).

This City is so messed up that they still have my son's middle name as his first. I guess the cop was a little shaken up and couldn't tell the difference between a first name and a middle name. He has a three-digit "P" number which means the boy's been around - he should have known better. I guess to be a cop these days you only need to have a pulse and a kick-ass survival instinct. The excuse of "officer safety" trumping rights is really getting old.

[inNV]

How could something perfectly legal be a serious charge? Seems like the judge doesn't know what he's talking about. But I would take his advice and "lawyer up"..and then sue the crap out of the city. They would need to lay off another 30 cops to pay my settlement if it was me.

[TigerLily]

How could something perfectly legal be a serious charge? Seems like the judge doesn't know what he's talking about. But I would take his advice and "lawyer up"..and then sue the crap out of the city. They would need to lay off another 30 cops to pay my settlement if it was me.

It's still a court of non record and with all the financial issues, it appears it's gonna stay that way. That means that the judge can convict. If convicted he can pay a small fee and appeal to the district level. The info from the kangaroo court doesn't transfer over, so in essence, he'd start all over. He'd rather pay for a lawyer at the District level. In the meantime, this "dress rehearsal" trial will be a great exercise for him to learn his rights, study the law, and make his case.

Thanks for the post.

[The Big Guy]

I was cuffed and taken to a holding tank for 24 hours. Was arraigned on Tuesday for Obstructing Officer. Trial on July 26th, at 1:30 p.m. in Vanlandshoot's Court.

News this morning said Vanlandshoot has retired.

TBG

[NewZealandAmerican]

Sue them, file criminal charges against them with at least a bare minimum charge of "aggravated kidnapping" as they were armed with guns when they kidnapped you and your son.


http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/241fin.php


CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

Summary:

• 
  Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
  The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

• 
  If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
  

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Summary:

• Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
  For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

• Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

• 
  
  
  SEE ALSO: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42...3----000-.html
  
  
  
  TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
  Prev | Next
  § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
  
  How Current is This?
  
  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
  
  
  
  
  I hope this helps TigerLily my dear sister in LIBERTY!
  
  

[Nevada carrier]

It's funny that we don't have news reels filled with prosecutions under these federal statutes. We all know it's happening, but no one is using the laws already on the books to do what those laws were intended to do.

[Yard Sale]

I don't know about prosecutions but there certainly are 42 USC 1983 suits.

[28kfps]

Wow, I thought the preemptive over NLV open carry laws was a done deal. These rogue agencies are relentless.

[MilitaryMike]

This is ridiculous. Actually, this is the only reason I have a CCW. I play open carry and hope I get arrested. Then I can pull the CCW card when my attorney gets involved.

[Felid`Maximus]

This sounds like an absolute nightmare to me. Please keep us posted. If there is any justice in the court, the court will recognize the illegitimacy of the NLV code. The aggressive driving charge will likely be the most challenging charge to confront. The testimony of an officer, unfortunately, is worth more than that of a regular person due to the memory skills they've been trained to have, or so I've been told by a judge.

[Yard Sale]

During discovery, demand the video from the prosecution. When they don't produce it, file a motion to compel discovery of exculpatory evidence. Include a copy of your jail booking inventory, which lists the camera, and explain it was recording at the time you were arrested.

[jlaudio29]

This is unreal.... Id say im suprised but im really not, after hearing story after story it just really dosnt suprise me anymore... so terrible.

I thought this NLV Open carry was done as well. I know the local news did a story on it when there was the open carry trash pick up in the empty parking lot near the police station... Should the news be contacted again and made aware of this situation? Im sure they would love to cover that story..

I noticed a sign the other day coming down MLK about the police being layed off and that we are unsafe That gave me a good laugh for the day

Good luck to you and keep us posted please!

[TigerLily]

News this morning said Vanlandshoot has retired.

TBG

Thanks for that! Just a few minutes ago I saw on the website that his name was off. He was replaced by Catherine Ramsey. I called to be sure it was still a court of nonrecord and according to one of the clerks, it is and it will be due to financial restraints.