LEO Interactions

I tried to search for a thread to put this is in, but man this forum has an awful search feature.

A little back-story first: I was visiting family in Reno/Sparks for Thanksgiving. I went to a bar to watch some Monday night football with my cousin on what happened to be my birthday around that time. I ended up having a great time, having some drinks meeting people bar hopping etc., until the wee hours of the morning. My cousin drank sparingly and drove me around, thankfully. But as we were leaving downtown Reno in his car we were pulled over because the cops didn't like the gusto with which he had stopped at and accelerated away from a stop sign or two. He wasn't ticketed for anything and was completely sober even offering up to blow into the handheld BAC tester and registering a nice round 0.0. Unfortunately he had 2 unpaid speeding tickets that had required his attention months prior that he had neglected to pay. So they arrested him (thankfully there were no new charges and after a night in jail the officers were kind enough to escort him to court to deal with these tickets). After putting him in the back of the squad car they turned their attention to me, the passenger. I told them I sure wasn't driving it anywhere and they were actually being friendly with me joking about my cousins predicament and all. One of them even pulled his car off the street and into a parking lot. Then they asked me for my ID, which is said no thanks to. I ended up giving them my name and pointedly asserted my DOB. I was then groped, "for officer safety". Then they seemed to get more irritated that I would hand over ID and asked for my SSN and I said fat chance on that. They let me call someone I knew to pick me up and I went on my way. But remembering this incident and how I was groped and didn't really know what was required of me in Nevada inspired me to look up the laws I am required to abide by while here. So today I did and wrote up a letter with the pertinent laws that might apply to my situation that I will give to any LEO that attempts to contact me in the future and I wanted to share it with everyone.





This interaction is occurring without my consent. I reserve all rights granted to me by the US Constitution and Nevada state law. I do not and will not communicate verbally with law enforcement as is my right to do so. I do not and will not consent to any searches of my person and/or property, nor do I consent to any physical contact between any law enforcement officer and my person and/or property. I will not choose to waive these rights in the future, regardless of circumstances.

AM I BEING DETAINED OR AM I FREE TO GO?

If I am free to go, I will now be departing and going about my lawful pursuits.

If I am being detained, I will respectfully and peaceably abide by what is required of me by law and trust any and all LEOs to do the same. This interaction must be conducted pursuant to NRS 171.123, which is listed in full below.

While not required to do so, out of courtesy for me and in aiding my understanding of the situation and how I should respond going forward, please articulate your reasonable suspicion that I have engaged in, am currently engaging in or am about to engage in a crime, or that I am currently on parole or probation and have somehow violated any condition(s) of a parole or probation requirement imposed upon me by a court of law?

If I was not operating a motor vehicle on a public road and this stop complies with NRS 171.123 then I will now provide you with my full legal name as stipulated in sec. 3. If I am not now providing you with my full legal name then I disagree that your suspicion is warranted. Please inform me when I am free to go, or at what point you are placing me under arrest.

If this is a traffic stop and you have requested it I have already or will now provide you with my current and valid drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. (Pursuant to NRS 483.350, 482.255 and 487.187; also NRS 883.550 and 484b.100)

Important Nevada Revised Statutes:

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of the person’s parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person’s identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

Possibly applicable: NRS 171.1231, 171.1232, 171.14 (Is there PC to arrest? If LEO officer reasonably believes detainee armed with a dangerous weapon AND is a threat to the safety of LEO weapon may be seized during investigation; kept as evidence if arrested)



*I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

That pesky Fourth Amendment is Such a bother to some in law enforcement. You'd almost think it was written to protect the citizenry from Them.

They can ask you for information, they can even get forceful, They can lie to you to get you to waive your rights. You have to have a strong mental attitude, which it appears you do. It irritates Officers when they encounter citizens who know their rights, but it's not your problem if they get irritated.

The pat down was likely bordering on a section 1983 violation, but think carefully; Did they ask your permission to pat you down? How they ask questions is carefully scripted and planned. For instance, they could have said something like, "You don't have anything dangerous on you, you wouldn't mind if we just pat you down to check do you?" If you just say no, what part of the question did you answer? No, you don't mind if they pat you down? No, you don't have anything dangerous on you? Your responses must me concise. I recommend the following statement, "I do not consent to any searches or seizure of my person or property, But I will not resist." Now, if they want to use something they "found on you" as evidence, and they had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, to conduct a Terry search you have ammo that your attorney can fire back at them in court. Right or wrong, it's the general position of many a judge to assume consent unless specifically stated that you did not.

Very nice writeup. I may have to write up a similar note with N.C. regs.

Very well written and thought out, Good references too.
The problem is they will not read it. Too long and too much truth and it doesn't matter to most of them . It is why they are trained in specific forms of questioning like that referenced above.
I give an A for effort.

Let's look at this situation.
Driving along pulled over for tail light out. Officer asks for the usual DL INS REG. Returns to cruiser runs info. Nothing comes back except active DL REG INS and a CCW PERMIT! Now from MY perspective.
The law 202.3667 Requires me to have my permit and another form of ID on me while carrying and produce both when REQUESTED by a peace officer. It's what I refer to as "don't ask don't tell" He doesn't ask and I don't tell. WHY?
I would rather have him at his cruiser with some knowledge of me, NO wants or warrants active DL REG INS, BEFORE stating to him I have a firearm and then from the safety of his cruiser decide how to deal with it.
The other side of it is he's standing 3 feet away from me and by handing out the CCW or just telling him I have a firearm and it's location I've put him in a situation that he knows nothing about me other than I have a firearm.
My feeling is the latter is not the best option for either one of us. Some cops have heard my opinion on this and have listened and thought that it was a valid point. It does coincide with the law no doubt.
Some have complained about the technique and mentioned that it should not be taught to anyone and they should be told to volunteer the information for officer safety. When questioned as to how many of their brothers in blue have been shot or killed by permit holders in the country they have no idea and neither do I. I would bet the number is extremely low maybe .00001%.
Which technique is better for everyone involved? Neither one is wrong.
Your way says I know my rights and will comply will all laws during the contact. I will be curteous but retain my rights.
My way says the same yet provides even more information prior to dealing with an officer safety issue.
Why is there resistance to these methods among law enforcement?

I'm pretty sure the officer did use a line like, "Do you have any weapons on you, do you mind if I check?". If I had had a beer or two less I would have ended up not getting felt up by a dude. I was a bit worried that after losing my transportation the cops might try to arrest me for being drunk in public or something. I'm sure they could have, but I but a judge would be sympathetic if a person is put out in public by the police. Overall though I have been really impressed with the police in Reno and Sparks. I've never been stopped while driving here and when I saw an officer about to give me parking ticket I asked if I could move it and they were great about it and we had a friendly chat.

Just some thoughts...
Since you weren't driving, and they didn't have RAS on you, they had no reason to force you to ID yourself nor to grope you. If you'd been more clear-headed at the time you might have been better able to stand up for your rights.
(Actually, you never have to ID yourself. You can remain silent, & nothing requires you to carry ID. Of course, if they decided to arrest you for something, they would have found the ID you used at the bars.)

Remember phrases like "why am I being detained?" and "of what crime do you suspect me?" and (as someone else said) "I do not consent to any searches or seizures of myself or my property". I wouldn't add the part about not resisting, but that's just me. Make your own choice.

Don't ask am I being detained, ask WHY.
If you have to ask, they're already detaining you, so make them admit it. You will probably catch them off guard & they'll say they're not detaining you, then you say "oh, thank you, I'll be going now."

BTW, what does your post have to do with open carry?
And if you'd break up the wall of text into some paragraphs it'd be easier to read.

I have said this over and over again....

Do you ask the rapist if he is raping you? Duh, no. Why create ambiguity by asking if you are being detained? If you ASK them, you don't get an answer. You effectively detain yourself waiting for an answer you aren't going to get. If you then assert your rights, you're accused of 'not cooperating.' It get ugly.

Ask "Why am I being detained?" It is now up the the Officer to explain why, or explain that you're not being detained. If things get unfriendly, it's his own fault.

You already know you're being detained, or you wouldn't be asking! Detainment is defined by weather or not YOU FEEL AS IF YOU ARE FREE TO GO. The Officer is not the one who defines it, you are. So don't defer what you already have. It's like 'negotiating' gun control. Why compromise what you already have?

No one ever hits them with the "Why?" and it's a shock to them to realize they've already crossed that line and don't have a good excuse for it. Often they quickly pop off with "Oh, I'm not detaining you!" and you can see the expression on their face as they realize you just pulled that off as you walk away.... ;-)

Hey thanks for all the tips guys. Admittedly I was not open carrying for this incident, I was out drinking and that just doesn't seem wise. I do frequently open carry, but have never been stopped or anything while doing so. Once a cop eyed my firearm and gave a friendly "Hey nice gun." You're right that a cop probably wouldn't read something this long, I have just been really looking into how others have freely given up their rights and lost their freedom for it. Examples are DUIs when a cops smells beer on your breath, or slurred speech for darn near anything to crackheads on COPS that keep their stash in their mouth. I guess this is sort of a rough draft to help me avoid relinquishing my rights to someone who wants to imprison me.

+1000

great thread!!!!:banana:

OC or not at this incident it involves the rights of those who choose OC CC OR NO C.


I agree with asking the WHY? question but if it's not answered it still has an effect on you.
IE YOU Why am I being detained?
COP Who are you? Do you have ID?
YOU WHY AM I BEING DETAINED?
COP silence
YOU I'm leaving. you walk away
COP STOP Resisting puts you in custody by force.
On the street they still have the upper hand and you look like the ass that wants to fight the cops. Just be careful. I'm all about rights but the dirty little secret is you will have more rights taken from you for standing up. It will cost you tons of time and effort and money just to clear it up. Being principled is great till you find out later you lost out on other opportunities. I like to look at all sides. That's all nothing more or less.

gunrunner1911 said:

OC or not at this incident it involves the rights of those who choose OC CC OR NO C.


I agree with asking the WHY? question but if it's not answered it still has an effect on you.
IE YOU Why am I being detained?
COP Who are you? Do you have ID?
YOU WHY AM I BEING DETAINED?
COP silence
YOU I'm leaving. you walk away
COP STOP Resisting puts you in custody by force.
On the street they still have the upper hand and you look like the ass that wants to fight the cops. Just be careful. I'm all about rights but the dirty little secret is you will have more rights taken from you for standing up. It will cost you tons of time and effort and money just to clear it up. Being principled is great till you find out later you lost out on other opportunities. I like to look at all sides. That's all nothing more or less.

Click to expand...

Can you substantiate the bolded / underlined statement with facts. I have witnessed several times how standing up for rights has resulted in absolutely no trouble at all.

On Superbowl sunday I was Detained at a DUI checkpoint, I refused to do Field sobriety testing (Clown Test) I would have given them PC to arrest me had I done it.. as I did last time I was sober. This time I did not consent, and 20 mins. later I was free on my way.

Another time I was with Tim from this forum, I had been drinking, he was my ride. We were on the sidewalk when I noticed some young skateboarders beeing "Jammed up" by the cops. I pulled out my cell phone to record, and almost instantly one cop asked "can I help you?" I replied that we were just fine thanks and kept my phone in the air.

Pretty soon a cruiser pulled up behind us all blacked out (no lights) A male and female cop approached (my side) asking "what are you doing tonight?" Time aswered, "We do not want to answer any questions, are we being detained?" The male cop answered back with "no, take your hands out of your pockets" Tim "No" Me "unh uh" ----Silence---- Female cop- "oh I know who you are" There was lots of silence, very awkward for them it appeared. In the end nothing happened, we did not give ground, and it did not end ugly or cost anything. It was how the system is designed.

gunrunner1911 said:

OC or not at this incident it involves the rights of those who choose OC CC OR NO C.


I agree with asking the WHY? question but if it's not answered it still has an effect on you.
IE YOU Why am I being detained?
COP Who are you? Do you have ID?
YOU WHY AM I BEING DETAINED?
COP silence
YOU I'm leaving. you walk away
COP STOP Resisting puts you in custody by force.

Click to expand...

Nice try buster.

Nobody says you walk away at that point, unless he says you're not being detained. Asking the question this way means that his silence is no longer a denial of detainment. He no longer has the "I never said you were detained' argument. That's all it's for. It clarifies that a detention is taking place.

As such, no, you are not free to go. You are being detained, you've stated that you know you're being detained, and he's made the situation combative by refusing to tell you why. Don't go anywhere, you're being detained, legally or not. That's the whole point. Now that you have established that you are being detained, why would you walk away?

No one said you should walk away if it goes down that road. Your deliberate misrepresentation is noted and filed.

What was said is that often they react to the statement that you feel you are being detained by telling you that you are not being detained. They just told you that you are free to go! When this happens, yes, walk away. Dur.

The OP's declaration is well thought-out. But, its probably a bit too long.

I like the keep-it-simple approach.

Some favor asking if one is being detained. Others favor asking why one is being detained.

Me? I would cover what seems to me the most important point first: establishing that it is not a consensual encounter. Politely, verbally: "Officer, no offense. I know you are probably just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter."

Simple. Polite. Direct. And, it immediately removes any doubt about whether I consented to the encounter. It leaves no room for anybody to later raise the question that it was a consensual encounter because I hung around. Nobody has to later figure out whether a reasonable person would have felt free to disregard the officer's inquiries and walk away. All that disappears if I refuse consent to the encounter itself at the very beginning.

If the cop continues the encounter, it is necessarily non-consensual, involuntary, a detention. And, certain legal obligations on his part now come into play. Basically, I just threw the entire onus onto him to have all his legal ducks in a row.

ixtow said:

SNIP Detainment is defined by weather or not YOU FEEL AS IF YOU ARE FREE TO GO.

Click to expand...

Umm. That's not quite the standard. Almost, but not quite 100%.

"We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." US vs Mendenhall. (bold emphasis added by Citizen).

Guess who gets to decide what a "reasonable" person would have believed? The courts.

For general interest, the next few sentences in the opinion are handy to know:

Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

gunrunner1911 said:

I'm all about rights but the dirty little secret is you will have more rights taken from you for standing up. It will cost you tons of time and effort and money just to clear it up.

Click to expand...

Yup, yup, yup.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Can you substantiate the bolded / underlined statement with facts.

Click to expand...

Tonight police showed up at my door, insisted that I "had" to let them in (no, I don't), said they wanted to "talk" to me, but refused to talk through the door.
Despite my telling them I didn't want to talk, didn't need any help, wanted them off my property, did not consent to any searches or seizures, they broke through the storm door, tackled me, cuffed me, then SIX officers went through the house searching for my gun.
Found one in a locked case, opened it (I didn't see what damage was done), and stole that plus both my holsters.
Then they hauled me off to the county mental bin for an emergency eval! (Even though my doctor had called them back to tell them not to bother me... she'd been worried because I was upset earlier in the day, & she knows I have guns.)
So now I get to find out where they took the property they stole from me & get it back tomorrow, do a FOIA request for all the phone calls, radio traffic, etc., and figure out w/ a lawyer what the next step is.

Citizen said:

"Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled."

Click to expand...

Check, check, & check.

Citizen said:

reasonable person

Click to expand...

I don't have conversations with unreasonable people. The circumstance is the qualifier. ;-)

Nevada carrier said:

They can ask you for information, they can even get forceful, They can lie to you to get you to waive your rights. You have to have a strong mental attitude, which it appears you do. It irritates Officers when they encounter citizens who know their rights, but it's not your problem if they get irritated.

The pat down was likely bordering on a section 1983 violation, but think carefully; Did they ask your permission to pat you down? How they ask questions is carefully scripted and planned. For instance, they could have said something like, "You don't have anything dangerous on you, you wouldn't mind if we just pat you down to check do you?" If you just say no, what part of the question did you answer? No, you don't mind if they pat you down? No, you don't have anything dangerous on you? Your responses must me concise. I recommend the following statement, "I do not consent to any searches or seizure of my person or property, But I will not resist." Now, if they want to use something they "found on you" as evidence, and they had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, to conduct a Terry search you have ammo that your attorney can fire back at them in court. Right or wrong, it's the general position of many a judge to assume consent unless specifically stated that you did not.

Click to expand...

one other little kick that I find helps to add to no consent and no resist line is, because I know that resistance and arguments with officer are best not done in the streets.They are best saved for the courts. you could even add, so my lawyer says. Those words help promote a little deeper thinking for the officer

I have also seen where just an arrest report is enough to kill your shot at a job.
Have you ever been arrested? Is on a lot of job apps. Of course you get to explain but given the circumstances where theres another 50 apps behind yours with no arrest HMMM? If you don't list it then theres the whole issue if it's found you can bet they will not hire you or even fire you over it.

The system is twisted. I have applied for a few Gov. jobs and part of that is a credit check Imagine that you need a job to pay your bills, you have been struggling with unemployment and what kills your opportunity to get back on track and pay those bills your credit check. SICK ZEN RIDDLE?
I myself have advocated to companies to run credit dhecks for security reasons.
Get arrested while employed and miss work your gone. Maybe it's worngful termination maybe it's not in this economy do you want to find out? I'm simply stating what may/can happen to a person.

I'm not saying that standing up for your rights is a bad idea or shouldn't be done. There may/can be other issues that while it may seem clear cut and dry here in forum land get all muddied up on the streets. Call me cynical but theres little justice when dealing with the justice system.