imported post
Section 3 "...to ascertain his identity..." is the section the courts ruled on in regards to a previous post. The court ruled that you don't have to provide documentary identification, and that verbal identification of Name/Address are sufficient.
You are only required to provide ID if you are being detained under NRS 171.123 (see red highlights).
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 his parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, 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.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)
And furthermore, the fact that you are open carrying does not give probable cause to detain you or seize your weapon to run the serial number(see red text below). As you will see below the officer must "reasonably believe" that not only are you carrying a dangerous weapon, but you are
ALSO a threat to the safety of the officer.
I would argue that the simple fact of legally carrying a firearm does not meet the standard required to lawfully detain you in the first place, but should they detain you a legally carried firearm most certainly does not meet the standard of being a threat to the officer.
Of course, good luck arguing this one on the sidewalk with any cop. Youwon't win no matter how many print outs ofthe law you have in your wallet.
All you can do is remain polite, ask if you are being detained, politely state you do not consent to any searches, then comply with the officers request. Once you've complied with any requests from the officer, ask him/her for suspicion of what crime you were detained.
Oncethe incident is over, grab a pen and paper and write down everything you can remember immediately, as you will need these details if you plan to follow up later.
NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another, the peace officer may search such person to the extent reasonably necessary to ascertain the presence of such weapon. If the search discloses a weapon or any evidence of a crime, such weapon or evidence may be seized.
2. Nothing seized by a peace officer in any such search is admissible in any proceeding unless the search which disclosed the existence of such evidence is authorized by and conducted in compliance with this section.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535)
Just keep in mind, everything I just said is meaningless during a traffic top, as you are being detained for the traffic stop at that point, and the officer has every legal right to disarm you for the duration of the traffic stop (even if we all agree it's silly).
Also remember, police have every legal right to ask you anything they want at any time. You have every legal right to decline to answer (with the noted exception of your name/address when being detained).
There is no good that comes out of getting upset. Simply assert your rights in a polite and professional manner. Most officers will respect that, and if you do run across one that doesn't, your best course of action is to comply with the officers demands, and file a complaint after the incident is over.
Here is a link to the Supreme Court case mentioned:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf