one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint

[Yard Sale]

Police dept. runs according to policy, not according to law. There's a 2010 memo from the city attorney about prohibited persons not allowed their guns back, but it does not direct the PD to do Brady checks.

 

[Merlin]

Yeah, it sucks, but I could certainly see the argument from their side. They certainly don't want to accidentally transfer to a prohibited person, that would be a PR nightmare. But, with that said, it still don't feel right. :-(

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Yard Sale]

Woot, got the same judge for the second appeal. She seems to follow the law.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Yard Sale - I watched your video and I as a little confused. Did you set up a video camera and then have it go missing ?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I'm new here and I'll probably take heat for this but...
I can't see how a simple DUI check point is such a huge issue for you guys. What is wrong with trying to prevent DUI crashes and deaths before they have a chance to occur? Yes I know, The Federal Government helps to funds these check points. Who really cares? The police have a job just like anyone else. These guys don't make up whatever they want, their orders come from their chain of command. This happens at all of our workplaces.

"The Federal Government helps to fund..." 1) it's a strawman arguement and 2) the federal government doesn't HAVE any money to fund Anything. All the money the federal government gives out comes from the States, and that money comes from the People. Yes, impaired driving is a "serious problem" so is murder, but the government isn't stopping people walking down the sidewalk to see if they have firearms. Now... What do you suppose would happen if next week all the inebriated drivers suddenly decided that they weren't going to drive and drink and "cellphone/texting" drivers were to become the number 1 killer on our roads? Do you think suspicionless stops would suddenly and miraculously disappear?

All anyone needs to say is "No officer, I have not had anything to drink" They would then be on their way. If you are so stuck on a DUI check point being an "illegal road block" then why not just say "officer, This check point is unconstitutional and I respectfully choose to not answer any questions, May I please be on my way?" I think this approach would go over much smoother and you would have still made your point. At this point you may even have a valid reason to file a lawsuit if you were drug out of the vehicle however being combative at the start will never end well for you.

The purpose of the officer wanting a response is that it's a way to check for slurred speech, alcohol on the breath, nervousness, stammering, or other indicators of impairment. It gives an officer with absolutely No Suspicion of wrong-doing a stepping stone to further the encounter.

I look at it like this, there are good cops and bad cops. I genuinely respect the good guys and think the bad ones should be punished to the full extent of the law. These particular officers were very civil and acted professional. Like I said, they were only doing their job.

They work for us (well, supposedly anyway). I don't care how civil and professional a bank robber is, he's still robbing a bank. The same applies to those who oh, so very politely violate both the intent and the wording of the Constitution, I don't care how politely they do it, they are still violating my right to not be stopped by the police without even a single shred of suspicion that I have committed a wrong.

Honestly there are a lot more important things to worry about in life such as our families and loved ones. This reminds me of a stunt that a teenager would pull.:shocker:

It reminds me of a 'stunt' someone standing up to misapplied authority would pull, but we all see things differently.

 

[Yard Sale]

Yard Sale - I watched your video and I as a little confused. Did you set up a video camera and then have it go missing ?

Yes, this camera (with batteries and memory card):

and this a notebook (with pen and loose paper):

The video recording device pictured next to the notebook was not stolen. The officer who inventoried my truck testified he didn't inventory it because it was hidden. I made some of its video public after the first trial. At the second trial, some police testimony changed.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Okay I see.

I film DUI check points and I always have 2-3 video and audio cameras rolling and I also use a program that allows my Iphone video/audio to be recorded at an off sight location so police cant delete it.

 

[MilitaryMike]

Okay I see.

I film DUI check points and I always have 2-3 video and audio cameras rolling and I also use a program that allows my Iphone video/audio to be recorded at an off sight location so police cant delete it.

What program is this?

 

[Yard Sale]

709 days later, I got my pistol, magazines, and ammo back. I only signed a receipt; I did not give them any information for a Brady check.

I was met by the patrol division commander and an unnamed backup. (They have a "officer safety bulletin" out on me that says I'm armed and dangerous or something. I was OC'ing.) He wanted me to carry it out in the manila enveope (violating NRS 202.3673 because the entrance was decorated) but I insisted on putting it in my clear plastic bag.

 

[KBCraig]

709 days later, I got my pistol, magazines, and ammo back. I only signed a receipt; I did not give them any information for a Brady check.

I was met by the patrol division commander and an unnamed backup. (They have a "officer safety bulletin" out on me that says I'm armed and dangerous or something. I was OC'ing.) He wanted me to carry it out in the manila enveope (violating NRS 202.3673 because the entrance was decorated) but I insisted on putting it in my clear plastic bag.

Outstanding, except for the 709 days, which was 709 too long.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

709 days later, I got my pistol, magazines, and ammo back. I only signed a receipt; I did not give them any information for a Brady check.

I was met by the patrol division commander and an unnamed backup. (They have a "officer safety bulletin" out on me that says I'm armed and dangerous or something. I was OC'ing.) He wanted me to carry it out in the manila enveope (violating NRS 202.3673 because the entrance was decorated) but I insisted on putting it in my clear plastic bag.

Nice!

 

[Yard Sale]

Appellant's opening brief filed. The city has until Jan. 3 to answer with its brief.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

I attended my hearing on my motion to award fees and costs of the action, on the 3rd. it was uneventful.... Judge Bare remanded my fees case down to the lower court claiming his court does not have jurisdiction. While he is probably right. his court will , as soon as I get "home towned" in muni court. and appeal it back up!

 

[Citizen]

Yeah, it sucks, but I could certainly see the argument from their side. They certainly don't want to accidentally transfer to a prohibited person, that would be a PR nightmare. But, with that said, it still don't feel right. :-(

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

It don't feel right because it is a political problem of police. Rights are not subject to the political difficulties of police.

 

[Yard Sale]

Don't want trouble with replevin actions in court? Then don't steal property in the first place. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.

I requested the recordings from the court hearings. On rainy days I'll be editing the testilying, perjury, and general shenanigans along with actual audio, video, photographic evidence, and conflicting testimony for your entertainment on YouTube.

 

[Jeff. State]

Don't want trouble with replevin actions in court? Then don't steal property in the first place. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.

I requested the recordings from the court hearings. On rainy days I'll be editing the testilying, perjury, and general shenanigans along with actual audio, video, photographic evidence, and conflicting testimony for your entertainment on YouTube.

Looking forward to more on your case!

 

[Yard Sale]

I requested the recordings from the court hearings.

Note that I did this twice. In person I was denied and told to put the request in writing. In response to my written request I got a denial via phone message saying the 2nd judicial district court has jurisdiction over the case.

 

[Yard Sale]

Quotes herein are from transcripts of the June 4, 2012 (dated) and October 23, 2012 (undated) trials at Sparks Municipal Court. Witnesses were sworn before testifying.

Images herein are still captures from a Nevada Highway Patrol dashboard video recording. I would like to provide the entire video but it's in a proprietary format which precludes me from posting it.

Statute quotes herein are from the Nevada Revised Statutes in effect on December 18, 2010. The statute in question has since been amended.

At a distance of not less than one-quarter of a mile from the point of the administrative roadblock, warning signs must be placed at the side of the highway, containing any wording of sufficient size and luminosity to warn the oncoming traffic that a "police stop" lies ahead. A burning beam light, flare or lantern must be placed near the signs to attract the attention of the traffic to the sign.

As you start through the checkpoint, there's a series of signs. There's 'Police Stop Ahead,' 'Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead,' 'Prepare to Stop.

So, when we do a checkpoint, the distance of those signs are based upon what is required by the federal regulation. The existence of the signs are required by the NRS.

[W]e had both northbound lanes in operation.

[W]e didn't close two lanes into one, so there wasn't any lane closures.

At the same point of the administrative roadblock, at least one red flashing or intermittent light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

The officers stand in a line in front of a stop sign and the vehicles pull up, and the first vehicle stops and the vehicles subsequently stop behind him in a row. Then when they are stopped, each officer will approach the driver’s window, have that person, if they haven’t already done so, roll down their window.

Typically, the stop sign, officers are stationed prior to the final stop sign.

Are officers supposed to stop the motorists before the stop sign?

Yes.

[W]hat signage and illumination was at the point of the roadblock?

At the point of the roadblock, there are two stop signs, one on either side of the road, with a flashing red light.

The only red flashing light, other than what’s on police cars, is mounted to the stop sign at the beginning of the DUI checkpoint and it flashes red. I know that it’s there because I have a continual issue with it. It has a sensor. It turns off when it’s daylight, so we have to play with it. But yes, there’s a red flashing light mounted to the stop sign, and there is a fuse burning at the base of the sign that says, “Sobriety checkpoint ahead,” that’s first encountered.

The checkpoint is set up, I'd say, over a course of 50 yards or with (sic) stop signs at the very front of the checkpoint, and then anywhere between 5 and 15 greeters from the beginning of the line all the way to the back.

I was the first in line greeter, which would mean the greeter closest to the stop sign, or the north end of the sobriety checkpoint. And [...] maybe about 5 to 6 car lengths, which would be south of that, or toward the back portion of the checkpoint.

And did the officers have reflective vests on over their uniforms that evening?

Yes, they are required to wear those.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

My remand back to Muni court is not without drama either, Here are the minuets from District court:

Minutes
12/03/2012 11:00 AM
- APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO AWARD COSTS OF THE ACTION Mr. Detmer advised Appellant has filed a motion for reimbursements of costs, and it is the position of the City that the proper procedure is for the lower court to hear said motion. Colloquy regarding what costs Mr. Stilwell had to deal with because of the discovery issue. Court, in finding that there should be a hearing on the merits of cost reimbursement, ORDERED, matter REMANDED back to the lower court with the authority to decide reimbursement of costs.

Here is what the prosecutors supervisor sent to the muni court to get a hearing date.

Hi Cristal:

I have a request (Per District Judge Bare) regarding the above case. We agreed to grant the above appeal and have the case dismissed. The defendant wants to ask for costs. Judge Bare said that the proper place to raise this issue is Muni Court. Judge Bare asked that the case be placed on calendar in Muni Court, even though it has been dismissed. I guess it would be for a status check. Can you do that, please ? Also, please notify the defendant of the new date. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Ed

They are so vulnerable when challenged, I am excited to go back to the court that found me guilty on "organic law" with no charges and explain all of the reasons I need to get paid including being found guilty on organic law lol.

 

[riddick]

I'm new here and I'll probably take heat for this but...

I can't see how a simple DUI check point is such a huge issue for you guys. What is wrong with trying to prevent DUI crashes and deaths before they have a chance to occur? Yes I know, The Federal Government helps to funds these check points. Who really cares? The police have a job just like anyone else. These guys don't make up whatever they want, their orders come from their chain of command. This happens at all of our workplaces.

You obviously haven't been stopped by cops who insisted you were drunk while not only having no proof of that (on the spot field test and breathalizer that didn't work to their "satisfaction"), but then angry enough to take it out on you. I used to support LE in their efforts to fight "crime", but not after my run in with a few obvious CRIMINALS in their midst. I now fully believe in the BIGGEST GANG IN AMERICA, THE GANG IN BLUE. I suggest you wake up.