Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: So it's illegal NOT to listen to the LEO at checkpoints?

  1. #1
    Regular Member renoglock22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    170

    So it's illegal NOT to listen to the LEO at checkpoints?

    NRS 484B.580 Failure to stop at roadblock; penalties.

    1. It is unlawful for a person to:

    (a) Proceed or travel through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock without subjecting himself or herself to the traffic control established at the roadblock.

    (b) Disobey the lawful orders or directions of a police officer at an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock.

    2. A person who unlawfully proceeds through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock shall be punished:

    (a) If the person is the direct cause of a death or substantial bodily harm to any person, or damage to property in excess of $1,000, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

    (b) If no death, substantial bodily harm or damage to property in excess of $1,000 occurs, for a gross misdemeanor.

    (Added to NRS by 1987, 1073; A 1995, 1298)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3595)



    So according to this NRS we have to go through the checkpoint and comply with all reasonable orders given by the officer. Am I reading this right? I have been up for hours trying to find anything that says these are unreasonable stops but even all the court cases I have found contradict each other. The 4th amendment says the checkpoints are illegal but then there is a court case from Michigan that says it is legal. Could someone please help me with this?

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    It says you have to obey the lawful orders & directions of a LEO.
    What constitutes lawful is the sticky part, & I'm no more use than you at this late hour for finding legal cites.
    Drop a line to Mike, User, &/or administrator to see if they can point you toward anything helpful.
    Or check the legal issues forum.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    This is not yet decided in Nevada. One would think Harnisch and Ramet would apply.

    Harnisch: "For the automobile exception to apply, two conditions must be present:  first, there must be probable cause to believe that criminal evidence was located in the vehicle;  and second, there must be exigent circumstances sufficient to dispense with the need for a warrant."

    Ramet: "we hold that the State may not introduce evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a warrantless search, or argue it to the jury as evidence of guilt.   The defendant's invocation of his Fourth Amendment right cannot be used as evidence of a crime or consciousness of guilt"

    I've got a good law firm working on my case, which can perhaps make some lemonade out of the lemons.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    This is not yet decided in Nevada. One would think Harnisch and Ramet would apply.

    Harnisch: "For the automobile exception to apply, two conditions must be present:  first, there must be probable cause to believe that criminal evidence was located in the vehicle;  and second, there must be exigent circumstances sufficient to dispense with the need for a warrant."

    Ramet: "we hold that the State may not introduce evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a warrantless search, or argue it to the jury as evidence of guilt.   The defendant's invocation of his Fourth Amendment right cannot be used as evidence of a crime or consciousness of guilt"

    I've got a good law firm working on my case, which can perhaps make some lemonade out of the lemons.
    Best of luck to you!

  5. #5
    Regular Member renoglock22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    It says you have to obey the lawful orders & directions of a LEO.
    What constitutes lawful is the sticky part, & I'm no more use than you at this late hour for finding legal cites.
    Drop a line to Mike, User, &/or administrator to see if they can point you toward anything helpful.
    Or check the legal issues forum.

    Right, it has to be a lawful order. But if I refuse to roll my window all the way down am I refusing a lawful order? according to NRS 484B.570 Police can set up a roadblock for any lawful purpose. Is looking for drunk drivers a lawful purpose for a roadblock? According to the 4th amendment they are not but idk. I know this doesn't have much to do with OC but before I carry through a roadblock I want to make sure I won't get arrested for refusing to talk and then they get more aggressive when they find out I'm carrying.

  6. #6
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    This is not yet decided in Nevada. One would think Harnisch and Ramet would apply.

    Harnisch: "For the automobile exception to apply, two conditions must be present:  first, there must be probable cause to believe that criminal evidence was located in the vehicle;  and second, there must be exigent circumstances sufficient to dispense with the need for a warrant."

    Ramet: "we hold that the State may not introduce evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a warrantless search, or argue it to the jury as evidence of guilt.   The defendant's invocation of his Fourth Amendment right cannot be used as evidence of a crime or consciousness of guilt"

    I've got a good law firm working on my case, which can perhaps make some lemonade out of the lemons.
    Check out Little v. State it carrys no precedence but covers many finer points and is prior to M v. Sitz

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by renoglock22 View Post
    Right, it has to be a lawful order. But if I refuse to roll my window all the way down am I refusing a lawful order? according to NRS 484B.570 Police can set up a roadblock for any lawful purpose. Is looking for drunk drivers a lawful purpose for a roadblock? According to the 4th amendment they are not but idk. I know this doesn't have much to do with OC but before I carry through a roadblock I want to make sure I won't get arrested for refusing to talk and then they get more aggressive when they find out I'm carrying.
    I've had metro cops tell me that the supreme court upheld that they can make me roll down my window. I sat there a good 10 minutes, and fought it, continuously asking...cite that. The even agreed they would. Officer after officer swarmed my vehicle, they kept telling me their supervisor was making me roll down my window. When I finally got a sargeant, he said I had to roll it down or be arrested. I again asked for him to cite the statute. He said he would....and never did. Kept procrastinating...and after having many officers with their hands on their guns...i rolled down my window...and they said 'go on'.


    Their idea of lawful order is anything they want. Our idea of lawful order is something that may incriminate ourselves. It's going to take a case/trial to fight it. Hope we win.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Lostlittlerobot View Post
    I've had metro cops tell me that the supreme court upheld that they can make me roll down my window. I sat there a good 10 minutes, and fought it, continuously asking...cite that. The even agreed they would. Officer after officer swarmed my vehicle, they kept telling me their supervisor was making me roll down my window. When I finally got a sargeant, he said I had to roll it down or be arrested. I again asked for him to cite the statute. He said he would....and never did. Kept procrastinating...and after having many officers with their hands on their guns...i rolled down my window...and they said 'go on'.


    Their idea of lawful order is anything they want. Our idea of lawful order is something that may incriminate ourselves. It's going to take a case/trial to fight it. Hope we win.
    I would suggest you mean "our idea of lawful order is something that is defined in statute."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    I imagine the law they were trying to find was NRS 484B.580. When I similarly refused to roll down my window, a lieutenant and his sergeant were waiting for me. They came over, greeted me by name, had their video camera going, and read this statute to me. I was already well aware of it. For those who are not, here it is:

    NRS 484B.580 Failure to stop at roadblock; penalties.
    1. It is unlawful for a person to:
    (a) Proceed or travel through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock without subjecting himself or herself to the traffic control established at the roadblock.
    (b) Disobey the lawful orders or directions of a police officer at an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock.
    2. A person who unlawfully proceeds through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock shall be punished:
    (a) If the person is the direct cause of a death or substantial bodily harm to any person, or damage to property in excess of $1,000, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
    (b) If no death, substantial bodily harm or damage to property in excess of $1,000 occurs, for a gross misdemeanor.

    The lieutenant and his officer were insistent that "Roll Down your Window" was a lawful order. Of course, I disagreed citing that if I had an odor of alcohol or drugs on me, requiring me to do this violated my right to be free from self-incrimination. At that point, the lieutenant ordered stop sticks be deployed in front of my vehicle. I had no choice but to comply with their coercive tactics. A lawsuit is possible, but I have no money to prosecute the claim, and no attorney is interested because aside from a possible injunction, the only amount I can win is probably $1.00 plus punitive damages, but case law suggests it may be difficult to see any real money from punitive in a 1983 case either.

    This is just my opinion, as I've been unable to find any real case law on the subject:

    If you are in the military, a "lawful order" is anything your commanding officer tells you to do that does not violate a law.

    But if you're a citizen, a "lawful order" is anything a police officer tells you to do that is backed up by a specific statute. So, specifically, NRS 484B.580(1)(a) states that you must "subject [yourself] to the traffic control established at the roadblock." Therefore, a valid "lawful order" would be "STOP", "Proceed slowly", "Proceed", "Enter the left lane", etc. Among other things, an unlawful order would be "Remove your hat", "Look into me eyes", "State your destination", "Roll down your window" or "Turn off the radio".

    Police like to talk about the Michigan v Sitz case being a 6-3 decision, saying "it wasn't even close". Although this is irrelevant, they go on to incorrectly explain the Sitz case allows them to do whatever the hell they want at a checkpoint. The ONLY question the SCOTUS answered in that case was "Is a DUI checkpoint violative of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable seizure (of a person)?" It's the only question they answered, so it's impossible to glean from that case whether the SCOTUS would be tolerant of other abuses, such as requiring a suspect to waive his 5th amendment protection against giving potentially self-incriminating evidence against himself.

    I know the police read these forums, but I've never once hidden my strategy or objectives from them, so I'm happy to discuss my next plan for the DUI Checkpoint, hoping maybe police will be prepared to lawfully deal with me. For 1, it sure beats a tazer to the face, and for 2, as much as I enjoy the being a law-abiding protester, I really *hate* being forced to sit at a DUI checkpoint while officers try to remember what the 4th amendment says. Since I can't really afford to sue them for a civil rights violation, my next protest will be to get to the checkpoint, stop when ordered (with my window up), and then before rolling down my window, spraying some type of body spray or cologne all over my body so as to confuse their senses. I wonder if an alcohol based cologne would work best? I will of course not say a word to them, nor will I even look in their direction.

    If this is unsuccessful, it's entirely possible they will choose to falsely arrest me, at which point I may have no choice but to sue them, but I hope it doesn't come to that. If successful, perhaps this method can be incorporated by other protesters. I had contemplated setting off a "stink bomb" in my car, but this only hurts me, and does little to stop the unlawful orders. Another idea I discussed with a friend involves getting a trailer load of farm animals or non-empty porta-potties and pulling that through the checkpoint, then parking it as close as possible. Police will not be wanting to smell much, and a whole lot of citizens will be protesting having to roll down their windows.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Is it illegal to have spilled beer all over your floor and upholstery?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    I like the way you think.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by renoglock22 View Post
    Right, it has to be a lawful order. But if I refuse to roll my window all the way down am I refusing a lawful order? according to NRS 484B.570 Police can set up a roadblock for any lawful purpose. Is looking for drunk drivers a lawful purpose for a roadblock? According to the 4th amendment they are not but idk. I know this doesn't have much to do with OC but before I carry through a roadblock I want to make sure I won't get arrested for refusing to talk and then they get more aggressive when they find out I'm carrying.
    It seems to me that while you may have to stop at their checkpoints you don't have to talk with them. Unless the cops have probable cause to believe you are under the influence while driving, when they stop you at the roadblock you are merely in a consensual situation, much as if a cop stopped you at random on a public sidewalk and tried to have a consensual conversation with you. If you are under no legal obligation to have a consensual conversation with a cop on a public sidewalk, it seems to me you would have no obligation to engage in consensual conversation with a cop at a roadblock on a public street. Your refusal to engage in consensual conversation does not, by itself, give rise to probable cause.

    I may be all wet, but that's my take on the situation.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    I imagine the law they were trying to find was NRS 484B.580. When I similarly refused to roll down my window, a lieutenant and his sergeant were waiting for me. They came over, greeted me by name, had their video camera going, and read this statute to me. I was already well aware of it. For those who are not, here it is:

    NRS 484B.580 Failure to stop at roadblock; penalties.
    1. It is unlawful for a person to:
    (a) Proceed or travel through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock without subjecting himself or herself to the traffic control established at the roadblock.
    (b) Disobey the lawful orders or directions of a police officer at an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock.
    2. A person who unlawfully proceeds through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock shall be punished:
    (a) If the person is the direct cause of a death or substantial bodily harm to any person, or damage to property in excess of $1,000, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
    (b) If no death, substantial bodily harm or damage to property in excess of $1,000 occurs, for a gross misdemeanor.

    The lieutenant and his officer were insistent that "Roll Down your Window" was a lawful order. Of course, I disagreed citing that if I had an odor of alcohol or drugs on me, requiring me to do this violated my right to be free from self-incrimination. At that point, the lieutenant ordered stop sticks be deployed in front of my vehicle. I had no choice but to comply with their coercive tactics. A lawsuit is possible, but I have no money to prosecute the claim, and no attorney is interested because aside from a possible injunction, the only amount I can win is probably $1.00 plus punitive damages, but case law suggests it may be difficult to see any real money from punitive in a 1983 case either.

    This is just my opinion, as I've been unable to find any real case law on the subject:

    If you are in the military, a "lawful order" is anything your commanding officer tells you to do that does not violate a law.

    But if you're a citizen, a "lawful order" is anything a police officer tells you to do that is backed up by a specific statute. So, specifically, NRS 484B.580(1)(a) states that you must "subject [yourself] to the traffic control established at the roadblock." Therefore, a valid "lawful order" would be "STOP", "Proceed slowly", "Proceed", "Enter the left lane", etc. Among other things, an unlawful order would be "Remove your hat", "Look into me eyes", "State your destination", "Roll down your window" or "Turn off the radio".

    Police like to talk about the Michigan v Sitz case being a 6-3 decision, saying "it wasn't even close". Although this is irrelevant, they go on to incorrectly explain the Sitz case allows them to do whatever the hell they want at a checkpoint. The ONLY question the SCOTUS answered in that case was "Is a DUI checkpoint violative of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable seizure (of a person)?" It's the only question they answered, so it's impossible to glean from that case whether the SCOTUS would be tolerant of other abuses, such as requiring a suspect to waive his 5th amendment protection against giving potentially self-incriminating evidence against himself.

    I know the police read these forums, but I've never once hidden my strategy or objectives from them, so I'm happy to discuss my next plan for the DUI Checkpoint, hoping maybe police will be prepared to lawfully deal with me. For 1, it sure beats a tazer to the face, and for 2, as much as I enjoy the being a law-abiding protester, I really *hate* being forced to sit at a DUI checkpoint while officers try to remember what the 4th amendment says. Since I can't really afford to sue them for a civil rights violation, my next protest will be to get to the checkpoint, stop when ordered (with my window up), and then before rolling down my window, spraying some type of body spray or cologne all over my body so as to confuse their senses. I wonder if an alcohol based cologne would work best? I will of course not say a word to them, nor will I even look in their direction.

    If this is unsuccessful, it's entirely possible they will choose to falsely arrest me, at which point I may have no choice but to sue them, but I hope it doesn't come to that. If successful, perhaps this method can be incorporated by other protesters. I had contemplated setting off a "stink bomb" in my car, but this only hurts me, and does little to stop the unlawful orders. Another idea I discussed with a friend involves getting a trailer load of farm animals or non-empty porta-potties and pulling that through the checkpoint, then parking it as close as possible. Police will not be wanting to smell much, and a whole lot of citizens will be protesting having to roll down their windows.
    If the reason for having to roll down your window is because the cops cannot hear you and you cannot hear them, the cops might have a case. But, if having the window up doesn't prevent you from hearing their "lawful orders", or prevent them from hearing you if you wish to consensually communicate with them, and if the reason they want you to roll down your window is so that they can "search" for indications that you are under the influence or for other things in plain sight that could lead to criminal charges, then I don't see how you can lawfully be ordered to allow them to search you or your car by rolling down the window.

    Edit: P.S. I know they can hear you and you can hear them with the window up; I watched your vid.

    Edit: P.S.S. It may be effective to put the officers on notice that you know exactly what they are trying to do. Inform them that you can hear them through the raised window and you know they can hear you. You know that the purpose for them ordering you to roll down the window is to search you and your vehicle for evidence of criminal conduct and you don't consent to any search so you will not be rolling down your window or making any statements to them.

    At least, if they do arrest you, you would have clear video and audio evidence that :

    1. There was no barrier to communication between you and the cops
    2. The jury will hear the real intent of the cops demanding you roll down the window: to search you and your vehicle without consent, rather than the lie that they couldn't hear you.
    3.That you did not consent to talk with them nor to allow them to search your person or car.
    4.That the only reason the cops arrested you was because you would not consent to talk with them or allow them to search you and your vehicle without probable cause and/or a warrant.
    Last edited by ed2276; 01-28-2012 at 03:04 PM.

  15. #15
    28kfps
    Guest
    Suggestion, go to a military surplus store purchase a full-face respirator. Respirators have no filtration on the breath exhaled, this may not be that obvious to the non-user or those not familiar with them, and rolling down the window for conversation is not going to help much.

    Next level is to rent a cheap car for the evening and fill the car with one of those nasty fart bombs seen online just before making the stop. If taking it to the next level one is going to want to make sure, the respirator is set up for vapor filtration and fits well or willing to endure a really crappy time. The filters will say if they are good for vapors or aerosols.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    129
    How to troll a police checkpoint maintain your rights at a police checkpoint: Get a cheap wireless intercom system. Mount each half on either end of a thin flat piece of plastic or metal, then fold it over, so it can fit over a rolled up window. The end result should be kinda like drive-in theater speakers or car dealership window lockboxes, but with speakers on both sides of the window.

    "I can hear you just fine, officer."

    And make the outside really loud, so there can be no doubt for anyone around that he can hear you, too.

    Keep this handy in the car, or just bring it out for announced checkpoints. You can even get a group and pass it from one car to the next and have everyone go through the checkpoint, for maximum effect.

  17. #17
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Can't find the exact wording I am looking for right now, on my phone, but SCOTUS ruled that the stop itself is lawful, anything beyond the stop itself cops have to follow rules on RAS and PC.

    A stop for me goes about like this:

    Roll down window halfway or so.

    Officer asks for drivers license (required to when ordered under law where I am, regardless of ras or pc)

    Hand it over. Officer asks, "Where are you headed to?", "I am not going to answer that." Officer: "Why not?", "I am not answering that either." Officer, "Can you pull over ahead?" Pulled over, "step out of the vehicle please" I step out, lock my keys in the car behind me.

    Officer gives me a wierd look, "Now why'd you go and lock your keys in the car?" I just stay silent and hand them this.



    Takes them a while to realize they have nothing on me and I won't speak. They think cause my keys are locked in the car they have me for a while. Eventually... "Am I free to go Officer?" "If you think you can drive off with your keys locked up."

    "Okay Officer, have a nice day." Grab my spare key from my boot and drive off.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  19. #19
    Regular Member renoglock22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    170
    Thank you everyone for the input. timf343, you mentioned the military and lawful orders and I realized I am still used to that type of authority. I was in the Navy and you are right, any order given by a higher rank is a lawful order unless it breaks a law or is unsafe. I guess growing up and being in the military, police were put up on this pedestal and were infallible. I just need to get used to the fact that the Police work for me and I have rights.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by renoglock22 View Post
    Thank you everyone for the input. timf343, you mentioned the military and lawful orders and I realized I am still used to that type of authority. I was in the Navy and you are right, any order given by a higher rank is a lawful order unless it breaks a law or is unsafe. I guess growing up and being in the military, police were put up on this pedestal and were infallible. I just need to get used to the fact that the Police work for me and I have rights.
    Just make sure you know what the laws and case law is for your state concerning this. My example above worked for me in Va., but may be illegal in some other state that or some such.

    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Is it illegal to have spilled beer all over your floor and upholstery?
    Since open containers in a vehicle are illegal, couldn't they do some cause and effect bullcrap to say you obviously had an open container at one point and therefore they have probable cause to check for one now?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jfrey123 View Post
    Since open containers in a vehicle are illegal, couldn't they do some cause and effect bullcrap to say you obviously had an open container at one point and therefore they have probable cause to check for one now?
    I don't think it is an absolute. You cannot operate a motor vehicle with an open container. And, it hasn't always been that way. It was in the 90's (I think) when the NV law changed to prohibit people in the passenger compartment from having an open container. I recall a trip to vegas as a passenger, with a coors party ball in the trunk, tap passed through for us non-drivers; the last weekend before the law changed.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    ...You cannot operate a motor vehicle with an open container...
    Correct. In fact, you can't be sitting in the car with the keys in the ignition even if you are parked with engine off. I don't know it this only applies on a public road, but it may apply in parking lots as well. But there is nothing illegal with "spilling" beer all over yourself, your upholstery, and your carpet. Just make sure you spill it all, so there is nothing left in an open container.

    Side question, how does the "open container" thing work with non-beer alcoholic beverages. After all, it's quite common to not drink an entire bottle of liquor. Are you now prohibited from transporting that bottle after it has been opened? Or does screwing the cap back on count as a closed container? And while not as effective, how would this work with cheap bottled beer which has twist-off caps that can mostly be twisted back on if you try hard enough?
    Last edited by MAC702; 01-31-2012 at 02:36 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    Here the statute:

    NRS 484B.150 Drinking alcoholic beverage while driving motor vehicle unlawful; open container of alcoholic beverage; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.

    1. It is unlawful for a person to drink an alcoholic beverage while the person is driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.

    2. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, it is unlawful for a person to have an open container of an alcoholic beverage within the passenger area of a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is upon a highway. This subsection does not apply to a motor vehicle which is designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of persons for compensation, or to the living quarters of a house coach or house trailer.

    3. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484B.130.

    4. As used in this section:

    (a) “Alcoholic beverage” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.015.

    (b) “Open container” means a container which has been opened or the seal of which has been broken.
    (c) “Passenger area” means that area of a vehicle which is designed for the seating of the driver or a passenger.

    (Added to NRS by 1971, 315; A 1991, 838; 2003, 3246)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.448)

    If the seal is cracked, it needs to go in the trunk. As long as it's not in the passenger compartment. In an RV or travel trailer, it must be in the "living quarters".

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Thank you for that. Interesting.

    I'll add that it is the "in actual physical control of a motor vehicle" part that is used if you are sitting in the driver's seat, even if the engine is off. Good to know it also says "highway."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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